Technique for focusing "into your scene"

[AdamD]

Hi all,

Question about 4x5 focusing. But first, to set the stage, let's talk digital for a moment.

When learning about focusing a digital camera I have read many times and in many places, to maximize overall image sharpness and depth of field, focus 1/3 of the way "into" your scene.

By all accounts this works pretty well and reliable.

Now, let's shift gears to 4x5. Here, I have learned from others and have read, basically do the following:

Focus on the near/far
Tilt for the near/far
Note the standard position on the metric scale
Then hunt around the scene and find the most out of focus area, focus on that area, then note that position of the standard on the metric scale
Then, here's the catch....place the standard at the mid-point of the near and far focus points

The last step is the one I want to talk about. Positioning the standard on the mid-point....doesn't that equate to focusing 50% "into" the scene? Shouldn't we be focusing at the 1/3 point "into" the scene? I know the math is harder, but, thoughts on that?

Thanks!!

[Richard Wasserman]

Here you go—

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/how-to-focus.html

[AdamD]

Here you go—

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/how-to-focus.html


Which essentially says the same thing..."Focusing at the median of (A,B) will make the closest point and the furthest point equally sharp." which is essentially the 50% mark. How you get there will vary depending on your camera, but in essence, the instructions (which btw, I have read and re-read many times) gets you to a point where your min/max focus extension determines where we split the difference.

Why is that when the strategy for a non-movement camera is to focus 1/3 of the way into the scene? Shouldn't this hold true when using a camera with movements? Why would it be different?

When you think about it, the max extension focus point in many cases will be your most important subject material. Further, if using tilt, the max extension point establishes the plane of focus which, to me is a pretty darn important aspect of the photo, right? So, if you focus 50% into the scene or focus at the "median of (A,B)" you are in effect moving the plane of focus further away from the initial focal plane.

I guess forget all that noise....why "median of (A,B)" and not 1/3 towards the minimum extension or 1/3 of (A,B)?

[Corran]

Put aside all of the math and theory and consider that there is truly only one slice of "focus" for a given focus distance. The "depth of field" is merely the area which appears, at a given print size, to be "in focus" or in other words, not obviously out of focus.

The closer you get to the edge of that depth of field, the less in focus it is. And if you print to a different size, it may become obviously out of focus once inspected.

In my opinion, it's much better to maximize the usage of your depth of field by putting what is most important in the image as close to the actual focus "slice" than do the whole "into the scene" focusing technique. This is made even easier with LF and movements, where often I would choose to focus on a foreground subject, and using tilt, make sure it and the horizon at infinity are both in reasonable focus. Then, stop down to get more perceived DOF. And when it doubt, stop down a little more. The perceived sharpness of your negative will really not be much different at f/22 or f/45, but having 1/3 of your negative clearly out of focus will definitely be obvious to a viewer. Don't worry about diffraction - that is mostly an overblown issue.

For small formats, using hyperfocal focusing makes a bit more sense to me - mostly for speed of shooting. But I'd still rather have a sharp subject with a slightly out of focus background than a kinda-sorta in focus subject with slightly sharper background, with the sharpest focus in the image somewhere behind the subject.

[Benjamin]

Not the same maths at all (if indeed the 1/3 "rule" for digital photography is actually based on maths). From the little I know on the subject (haven't done much digital photography), it's stated as 1/3 from the lower part of your image, not 1/3 of the actual scene.

In other words, it has nothing to do with the distance between lens and subject as well as between lens and film plane, on which much of the DOF maths is based on a large-format camera.

[Drew Wiley]

From a compositional standpoint, there is no rule of thumb. The nice thing about large format is that you have a big viewing screen. You can take your time and study your composition from an esthetic rather than just technical standpoint. The best way to learn is to ignore everything you've been taught before or have inferred before. Learn with your eyes, assisted by a good focus loupe, instead of a calculator. Damn the math.

[Benjamin]

Damn the math.

I need a t-shirt with this printed on it. :)

[Vaughn]

I have found moving the back standard, focusing on the nearest and then farthest parts of the scene I want to be in sharp focus, and moving the standard halfway between to be very handy when the scene is too dark over the 11x14 GG when trying to get the focus exactly where it needs to be. And it can give someone a place to start from...along with leveling the camera and movements zeroed out.

Most of the time I have already translated what is in front of my eyes into a working model of what will go on the GG as I am setting up the camera...but still watching for surprises around me and on the GG. Such as, "Why was I thinking horizontal here...this is a vertical all day long!" But like Drew said -- it all happens on the ground glass. Do it enough times and one finds the quickest route for how one creates the image on the GG.

[Oren Grad]

When learning about focusing a digital camera I have read many times and in many places, to maximize overall image sharpness and depth of field, focus 1/3 of the way "into" your scene.

By all accounts this works pretty well and reliable.

It's not correct and it's not reliable.


Why is that when the strategy for a non-movement camera is to focus 1/3 of the way into the scene? Shouldn't this hold true when using a camera with movements? Why would it be different?

It doesn't hold true for any camera.

[Oren Grad]

In my opinion, it's much better to maximize the usage of your depth of field by putting what is most important in the image as close to the actual focus "slice" than do the whole "into the scene" focusing technique.... I'd still rather have a sharp subject with a slightly out of focus background than a kinda-sorta in focus subject with slightly sharper background, with the sharpest focus in the image somewhere behind the subject.

That's how I approach it as well.

[Doremus Scudder]

Here you go—

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/how-to-focus.html

Couple that with: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html and you're good to go.

A few observations:

The "1/3-in" rule doesn't really work. The amount of depth of field in front of and behind the plane of sharp focus varies with the distance being focused on. There are better ways to work with a view camera.

The "focus near - focus far and split the distance method" works well only if you use it intelligently. You have to get the proper f-stop to provide you with the desired depth of field and you need to consider where the plane of sharp focus will end up and adjust if needed. For example, you might want to cheat toward better focus for a distant horizon line at infinity and stop down more with many scenes, etc.

And, the "near" and the "far" can end up being above and below the plane of sharp focus if you use tilts; you really need to be able to visualize where that plane of sharp focus is in order to effectively choose your near and far focus points.

Mastering movements is an essential part of working with the view camera if you want to optimize sharpness and depth of field. You really need to be able to assess a situation, decide where you want the plane of sharp focus to lie in the scene so you can use the optimum f-stop, and then know how to best achieve that with movements. Choosing focus points for your plane of sharp focus and applying movements is equally, if not more, important that "focusing" your camera.

Knowing how to deal with out-of-focus areas is important too. Sometimes, they are unavoidable; sometimes desirable (although I don't really like glaring out-of-focus areas in my work). Knowing how to tweak movements and focus so an unavoidable soft area is placed unobtrusively in the scene is important too.

Best,

Doremus

[Alan Klein]

Put aside all of the math and theory and consider that there is truly only one slice of "focus" for a given focus distance. The "depth of field" is merely the area which appears, at a given print size, to be "in focus" or in other words, not obviously out of focus.

The closer you get to the edge of that depth of field, the less in focus it is. And if you print to a different size, it may become obviously out of focus once inspected.

In my opinion, it's much better to maximize the usage of your depth of field by putting what is most important in the image as close to the actual focus "slice" than do the whole "into the scene" focusing technique. This is made even easier with LF and movements, where often I would choose to focus on a foreground subject, and using tilt, make sure it and the horizon at infinity are both in reasonable focus. Then, stop down to get more perceived DOF. And when it doubt, stop down a little more. The perceived sharpness of your negative will really not be much different at f/22 or f/45, but having 1/3 of your negative clearly out of focus will definitely be obvious to a viewer. Don't worry about diffraction - that is mostly an overblown issue.

For small formats, using hyperfocal focusing makes a bit more sense to me - mostly for speed of shooting. But I'd still rather have a sharp subject with a slightly out of focus background than a kinda-sorta in focus subject with slightly sharper background, with the sharpest focus in the image somewhere behind the subject.

You focus on the near and tilt for the far?

[AdamD]

Couple that with: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html and you're good to go.

A few observations:

The "1/3-in" rule doesn't really work. The amount of depth of field in front of and behind the plane of sharp focus varies with the distance being focused on. There are better ways to work with a view camera.

The "focus near - focus far and split the distance method" works well only if you use it intelligently. You have to get the proper f-stop to provide you with the desired depth of field and you need to consider where the plane of sharp focus will end up and adjust if needed. For example, you might want to cheat toward better focus for a distant horizon line at infinity and stop down more with many scenes, etc.

And, the "near" and the "far" can end up being above and below the plane of sharp focus if you use tilts; you really need to be able to visualize where that plane of sharp focus is in order to effectively choose your near and far focus points.

Mastering movements is an essential part of working with the view camera if you want to optimize sharpness and depth of field. You really need to be able to assess a situation, decide where you want the plane of sharp focus to lie in the scene so you can use the optimum f-stop, and then know how to best achieve that with movements. Choosing focus points for your plane of sharp focus and applying movements is equally, if not more, important that "focusing" your camera.

Knowing how to deal with out-of-focus areas is important too. Sometimes, they are unavoidable; sometimes desirable (although I don't really like glaring out-of-focus areas in my work). Knowing how to tweak movements and focus so an unavoidable soft area is placed unobtrusively in the scene is important too.

Best,

Doremus



Doremus, this is all very well said. But this is what I'm trying to understand better.

How about this....here's a link to 4 shots I just took the other day. You can download them and zoon in further than SmugMug will allow. Anyway, you will see soft spots in these images even though all of these areas fell within my near and far focus points on the rail. It would have been my expectation that everything should have been pretty much the same sharpness, but not so....I'm trying to understand why.

Of course one possibility is that I THOUGHT all the areas were within the near and far focus points of travel, and maybe I was wrong. But I'm thinking by moving the standard to the mid-point of the near and far points on the standard rail markings that I caused the problem and I should have set the standard closer to the max extension point.

Anyway....take a look at let me know if anyone can detect any potential causes.

https://fountainphoto.smugmug.com/Film-Photography/Large-Format-Photography/Toms-Thumb-3-27-2021/

Image 1: 150mm Rodenstock f/5.6. 1/15 sec @ f/25 orange filter
Image 2: 150mm Rodenstock f/5.6. 1/15 sec @ f/20 orange filter
Image 3: 90mm Rodenstock f/6.8. 1/15 sec @ f/20 orange filter
Image 4: 90mm Rodenstock f/6.8. 1/8 sec @ f/22 orange filter

Arca-Swiss F-Line Classic with the MicroOrbix. Focus in the highest farthest point, MicroOrbix tilt for the nearest lowest. Image 4 was the easiest to get this clean.

Any thoughts??

[Drew Wiley]

Maybe this particular thread query is really about how to efficiently use view camera movements. That comes first, in any event.

[Oren Grad]

It would have been my expectation that everything should have been pretty much the same sharpness, but not so....I'm trying to understand why.

DOF theory does not imply that everything within the calculated limits is uniformly sharp. Simply from the laws of optics, the degree of unsharpness necessarily increases as you move away from the plane of focus. However, depending on your circle-of-confusion criterion, up to the calculated distance limits the portions of the picture away from the plane of focus are judged acceptably unsharp. Again, not uniformly unsharp, just acceptably so to a varying degree as you move away from the plane of focus.

[Oren Grad]

Maybe this particular thread query is really about how to efficiently use view camera movements. That comes first, in any event.

Best to keep movements out of it until the basic concepts of focus behavior are adequately understood, else one doesn't really understand what is and isn't being accomplished with movements.

[Drew Wiley]

No topic is as confusing as "circle of confusion". How confused do you want to be? - just depends how much magnification your loupe happens to have! It's all relative. Unless you're printing a book, you don't even need to know that particular expression, or the likewise irrelevant nonsense of, "normal viewing distance". Your own eyes can do it all, spontaneously and far more meaningfully. Yes, once in awhile it's nice to know about hyperfocal theory and so forth; but I can't think of a single instance I ever applied it to large format work. No need. The whole concept of sharpness is itself a plastic concept - and I'm known for very "sharp" prints! No - they are not in fact in acute focus everywhere - it's nuanced, but with some particular portion deliberately in most acute focus; and that comes about as a compositional choice, not via any rote formula. We each have our particular strategies. It's just that the option of view camera movements opens up an entire new toolbox. It takes some time and experimentation to get weaned from small camera methodology, especially if it's digital. So, in my opinion, it helps to erase the blackboard first, and start fresh.

Yes, Oren, I get it. It's like me at 16, trying to learn to drive while also trying to learn how to side-handle gear shift an old GMC truck at the same time. My dad put me out in the middle of the pasture because he figured I couldn't get in any trouble that way. I made it as far as the ditch, and it took him the rest of the day to winch the truck out. Plan B. ...Going from SLR cameras to a view camera was analogous for me. One just has to jump in at some point and learn via some inevitable bellyflops, or else tag along with somebody who already knows the ropes, and watch what they are doing. Hopefully that opportunity will arise in this case.

[otto.f]

I wonder what your goal is: everything sharp, landscape, portrait, stills? Esthetically, I mostly go for 1/3 front, 2/3 background and I’m seldom in for everything sharp, except with landscape.

[reddesert]

Hi all,

Question about 4x5 focusing. But first, to set the stage, let's talk digital for a moment.

When learning about focusing a digital camera I have read many times and in many places, to maximize overall image sharpness and depth of field, focus 1/3 of the way "into" your scene.

By all accounts this works pretty well and reliable.

Now, let's shift gears to 4x5. Here, I have learned from others and have read, basically do the following:

Focus on the near/far
Tilt for the near/far
Note the standard position on the metric scale
Then hunt around the scene and find the most out of focus area, focus on that area, then note that position of the standard on the metric scale
Then, here's the catch....place the standard at the mid-point of the near and far focus points

The last step is the one I want to talk about. Positioning the standard on the mid-point....doesn't that equate to focusing 50% "into" the scene? Shouldn't we be focusing at the 1/3 point "into" the scene? I know the math is harder, but, thoughts on that?

Thanks!!

Other people have explained that the 1/3 rule of thumb isn't really accurate. It also predates digital BTW. But anyway, the simple explanation for the difference in these rules of thumb is that the 1/3 rule applies to the distance in the subject space, like your subject is from 10 to 40 feet away so you focus at 20 feet. The rule you quote for 4x5 of focusing at the mid-point is in the image space, where you're splitting the positions of the standard corresponding to near and far in half.

Because the relation between image distance from the lens and subject distance from the lens is not linear, these rules of thumb are less different then you might imagine. The difference is not that 35mm/digital has a different DOF from 4x5. Rather, it's mechanical: in 35mm/digital you're usually looking at the focusing distance scale of a lens that gives subject distance, while with an LF camera you can more easily measure the position of the image (the standard).

[GRAYnomad]

Image 1: 150mm Rodenstock f/5.6. 1/15 sec @ f/25 orange filter
Looks good front to rear but soft top right, which implies to me that you had some swing in place as well.

Image 2: 150mm Rodenstock f/5.6. 1/15 sec @ f/20 orange filter
Same thing really. Good overall but soft on the left side.

Image 3: 90mm Rodenstock f/6.8. 1/15 sec @ f/20 orange filter
Looks like it's focused on the dead tree and no tilt has been used so the midground is slightly soft and the background is very soft.

Image 4: 90mm Rodenstock f/6.8. 1/8 sec @ f/22 orange filter
Foreground sharp, background sharp, midground soft. Classic effect you get when the shape of the terrain is like this. Your cone of focus expands as it moves away form the camera but it's not big enough to encompass the midground.

I might not be right but as all these appear to have been shot wide open (or close to that, I'm not familiar with those lenses) I would not be surprised by any of the above.

As an example of #4, here's one of mine I posted on the forum yesterday.

http://www.robgray.com/photos/images/02041.jpg

I put the plane of focus as best I could through the heads of all the grass, those in the foreground are sharp as are those at the back, but in between, lower down on the grass stems, it's not in focus. And this is at f45.

[lenicolas]

I guess forget all that noise....why "median of (A,B)" and not 1/3 towards the minimum extension or 1/3 of (A,B)?

You’re assuming the relationship between standard extension and focusing distance is linear, which it is not.
Just do the test : pick points A and B, mark the position of the standard and then put the standard on the median point. Are you now focusing exactly in the middle between A and B?


EDIT : actually you don’t even need a view camera to test this. If you have a lens with a focussing scale hanging around you can check the markings :

214325

Here you can see that extension wise, 2m is halfway between 1.5m and 3m, when in your scene 2m is roughly 1/3rd of the way between 1.5 and 3m.

[Alan Klein]

You’re assuming the relationship between standard extension and focusing distance is linear, which it is not.
Just do the test : pick points A and B, mark the position of the standard and then put the standard on the median point. Are you now focusing exactly in the middle between A and B?


EDIT : actually you don’t even need a view camera to test this. If you have a lens with a focussing scale hanging around you can check the markings :

214325

Here you can see that extension wise, 2m is halfway between 1.5m and 3m, when in your scene 2m is roughly 1/3rd of the way between 1.5 and 3m.

That's correct. The halfway is really the same relationship of 1/3 to 2/3 (approx I believe) on 4x5's and my bellows operated Mamiya RB67. Movement gets less the further the focal point is from the camera. If you were to mark the hash marks on the 4x5 camera bed with distance in feet or meters, you'd see the same nonlinear distances as in your picture of the lens marking of distances. Of course, you'd have to mark it separately for each of your lenses.

[Doremus Scudder]

Doremus, this is all very well said. But this is what I'm trying to understand better.

How about this....here's a link to 4 shots I just took the other day. You can download them and zoon in further than SmugMug will allow. Anyway, you will see soft spots in these images even though all of these areas fell within my near and far focus points on the rail. It would have been my expectation that everything should have been pretty much the same sharpness, but not so....I'm trying to understand why.

Of course one possibility is that I THOUGHT all the areas were within the near and far focus points of travel, and maybe I was wrong. But I'm thinking by moving the standard to the mid-point of the near and far points on the standard rail markings that I caused the problem and I should have set the standard closer to the max extension point.

Anyway....take a look at let me know if anyone can detect any potential causes.

https://fountainphoto.smugmug.com/Film-Photography/Large-Format-Photography/Toms-Thumb-3-27-2021/

Image 1: 150mm Rodenstock f/5.6. 1/15 sec @ f/25 orange filter
Image 2: 150mm Rodenstock f/5.6. 1/15 sec @ f/20 orange filter
Image 3: 90mm Rodenstock f/6.8. 1/15 sec @ f/20 orange filter
Image 4: 90mm Rodenstock f/6.8. 1/8 sec @ f/22 orange filter

Arca-Swiss F-Line Classic with the MicroOrbix. Focus in the highest farthest point, MicroOrbix tilt for the nearest lowest. Image 4 was the easiest to get this clean.

Any thoughts??

Adam,

Some thoughts :) :

First, just because you choose near and far focus points and then set the focus halfway between them doesn't mean that you have enough depth of field for the extremes; that depends upon the aperture. The farther apart the focus points are (call it the focus spread distance) the smaller aperture you'll need to get everything acceptably sharp. That's all in the article that I linked to in my first post.

Second, as Corran mentioned above, there's really only one sharp plane of focus; everything else is out of focus proportionally to how far it is from the plane of sharp focus and the aperture you've chosen. The object is to have the out-of-focus blurs (blurry circles/circles of confusion) to be so small in the final print that our eyes can't tell the difference between them and the really sharp points. You can see, then, that whether something ends up appearing out of focus also depends on the degree on enlargement. Make a contact print and it looks really sharp; enlarge it 10x and everything starts to look soft...

So, the idea is to find the optimum aperture for the focus spread you have and the degree of enlargement you are planning on making (or, conversely, knowing how large a print you can make from a particular negative before it appears soft in areas you want sharp). Again, the article I linked to goes into this. Really, it's worth doing your homework here to save yourself a lot of headaches later.

Lets talk about movements a bit while I'm at it: Movements are used for two reasons: image control (e.g., correcting converging parallels) and optimally positioning the plane of sharp focus in the scene. The latter is the important one here and is achieved with tilts and swings (note that rise/fall doesn't reposition the plane of sharp focus; just takes a different slice of the image circle).

When positioning the plane of sharp focus with a view to getting everything in the scene as sharp as possible (which I think is what you're trying to do), the object is to get it as close as possible to the near and far focus points. The problem is, when you move the plane of sharp focus around, the points that are nearest and farthest change around too. If you, say, tilt the front forward a bit, which results in tilting the plane of sharp focus down in the scene a bit more in that same direction, the points you choose to focus on are no longer the ones nearest to and farthest from your camera position. Let's say you tilt so that the top of a near rock and a far mountaintop are in the plane of sharp focus. Now, the farthest point from the plane of sharp focus might be a spot at the base of the mountain, and there may be no point nearer than the top of that near rock you focused on. Note also, that the mountaintop is just as close to the plane of sharp focus as the top of the near rock. (This scenario is a common mistake made by people just learning camera movements.)

You can see, in the above example, that the plane of sharp focus isn't at an optimal position between near and far points; it's intersecting the nearest point and some distance from the farthest point (which is at a point that seems counter-intuitive at first...). The solution is to choose better reference points; focus halfway down into that near rock and halfway down the mountainside so the tops of the near rock and the mountain are "closer" and the bottom of the near rock and the base of the mountain are "farther" from the plane of sharp focus.

Now, you've positioned your plane of sharp focus well, but you still need to focus the camera (many think they are done at this point, but no!). Find the closest point, i.e. which point in the scene needs the most bellows extension to be sharp on the ground glass. Note this position; it's your "near" focus point. Now do the same for the far; search around in the scene and find the point that requires the least bellows draw. This is your far focus point.

Once you have those, note the distance between the two points, set your focus halfway between them on the rail/camera bed and, importantly, choose the optimum aperture for your focus spread so that everything stays acceptably sharp.

If you've done your homework, you've got a sticker or a table that you can easily reference to tell you what aperture to use for what focus spread.

Alternately, you can set your focus and stop down, observing your focus points through your loupe until they become acceptably sharp and use that aperture. Many do this. The problems with the visual method, however, are that the ground glass can get too dark to view in many situations (low light, etc.), the grain of the ground glass can keep you from being able to tell when things are right, and you're not really balancing diffraction degradation with depth of field (unless you're using a really powerful loupe and a really fine ground glass, anyway). Still, many say, "stop down till everything is sharp enough, then stop down one more stop," and do fine. I like my focus-spread tables.

Finally, let's look at one of your photos as an example. I don't know what you find unsharp about it; I can't see things on the website very well, but I can till you how I'd go about setting up for it. The photo is the second one, the one with the hillside and rock outcropping that slope up to the left.

I'd want to place my plane of sharp focus diagonally in this scene, laying it down a bit with tilt and then tipping it sideways a bit with swing so that the near right corner of the plane of sharp focus was the lowest and the far left was the highest (hope that makes sense). I'd pick two points on the vertical center axis for my tilt reference points, say halfway up that cholla in the foreground and halfway up the rock outcropping. I'd apply the tilt first. Then, I'd choose two reference points for the swing on the horizontal axis, say halfway up the slope on the left and the middle of the bright rock on the right. I'd then apply the tilt.

After that, I'd search around the scene, focusing on different things to find which are actually the "near" and "far" focus points, all the time keeping in mind where my plane of sharp focus lies. So, I'd check the tops of the rock outcropping and the tops of the near bushes/cacti for near points. Ideally, they should all be in focus at roughly the same position (if there are large discrepancies, I might rethink my movements). I'd find the one with the greatest bellows draw and call that "near" and note the position on the camera (my cameras all have scales on them). Then, I'd look around for the "far" (this time, something below the position of the plane of sharp focus), likely the hollow at the base of the outcropping or the ground near the camera. After finding the one that needs the least bellows draw, I'd note that position and then proceed as described above; finding focus spread and choosing aperture.

Sorry this got so long; I didn't have time to write a shorter response :)

Doremus

[AdamD]

Other people have explained that the 1/3 rule of thumb isn't really accurate. It also predates digital BTW. But anyway, the simple explanation for the difference in these rules of thumb is that the 1/3 rule applies to the distance in the subject space, like your subject is from 10 to 40 feet away so you focus at 20 feet. The rule you quote for 4x5 of focusing at the mid-point is in the image space, where you're splitting the positions of the standard corresponding to near and far in half.

Because the relation between image distance from the lens and subject distance from the lens is not linear, these rules of thumb are less different then you might imagine. The difference is not that 35mm/digital has a different DOF from 4x5. Rather, it's mechanical: in 35mm/digital you're usually looking at the focusing distance scale of a lens that gives subject distance, while with an LF camera you can more easily measure the position of the image (the standard).


reddesert,

This exactly explains my question and is a great answer. THANK YOU!! This makes total sense. Very helpful.

[AdamD]

Adam,

Some thoughts :) :

First, just because you choose near and far focus points and then set the focus halfway between them doesn't mean that you have enough depth of field for the extremes; that depends upon the aperture. The farther apart the focus points are (call it the focus spread distance) the smaller aperture you'll need to get everything acceptably sharp. That's all in the article that I linked to in my first post.

Second, as Corran mentioned above, there's really only one sharp plane of focus; everything else is out of focus proportionally to how far it is from the plane of sharp focus and the aperture you've chosen. The object is to have the out-of-focus blurs (blurry circles/circles of confusion) to be so small in the final print that our eyes can't tell the difference between them and the really sharp points. You can see, then, that whether something ends up appearing out of focus also depends on the degree on enlargement. Make a contact print and it looks really sharp; enlarge it 10x and everything starts to look soft...

So, the idea is to find the optimum aperture for the focus spread you have and the degree of enlargement you are planning on making (or, conversely, knowing how large a print you can make from a particular negative before it appears soft in areas you want sharp). Again, the article I linked to goes into this. Really, it's worth doing your homework here to save yourself a lot of headaches later.

Lets talk about movements a bit while I'm at it: Movements are used for two reasons: image control (e.g., correcting converging parallels) and optimally positioning the plane of sharp focus in the scene. The latter is the important one here and is achieved with tilts and swings (note that rise/fall doesn't reposition the plane of sharp focus; just takes a different slice of the image circle).

When positioning the plane of sharp focus with a view to getting everything in the scene as sharp as possible (which I think is what you're trying to do), the object is to get it as close as possible to the near and far focus points. The problem is, when you move the plane of sharp focus around, the points that are nearest and farthest change around too. If you, say, tilt the front forward a bit, which results in tilting the plane of sharp focus down in the scene a bit more in that same direction, the points you choose to focus on are no longer the ones nearest to and farthest from your camera position. Let's say you tilt so that the top of a near rock and a far mountaintop are in the plane of sharp focus. Now, the farthest point from the plane of sharp focus might be a spot at the base of the mountain, and there may be no point nearer than the top of that near rock you focused on. Note also, that the mountaintop is just as close to the plane of sharp focus as the top of the near rock. (This scenario is a common mistake made by people just learning camera movements.)

You can see, in the above example, that the plane of sharp focus isn't at an optimal position between near and far points; it's intersecting the nearest point and some distance from the farthest point (which is at a point that seems counter-intuitive at first...). The solution is to choose better reference points; focus halfway down into that near rock and halfway down the mountainside so the tops of the near rock and the mountain are "closer" and the bottom of the near rock and the base of the mountain are "farther" from the plane of sharp focus.

Now, you've positioned your plane of sharp focus well, but you still need to focus the camera (many think they are done at this point, but no!). Find the closest point, i.e. which point in the scene needs the most bellows extension to be sharp on the ground glass. Note this position; it's your "near" focus point. Now do the same for the far; search around in the scene and find the point that requires the least bellows draw. This is your far focus point.

Once you have those, note the distance between the two points, set your focus halfway between them on the rail/camera bed and, importantly, choose the optimum aperture for your focus spread so that everything stays acceptably sharp.

If you've done your homework, you've got a sticker or a table that you can easily reference to tell you what aperture to use for what focus spread.

Alternately, you can set your focus and stop down, observing your focus points through your loupe until they become acceptably sharp and use that aperture. Many do this. The problems with the visual method, however, are that the ground glass can get too dark to view in many situations (low light, etc.), the grain of the ground glass can keep you from being able to tell when things are right, and you're not really balancing diffraction degradation with depth of field (unless you're using a really powerful loupe and a really fine ground glass, anyway). Still, many say, "stop down till everything is sharp enough, then stop down one more stop," and do fine. I like my focus-spread tables.

Finally, let's look at one of your photos as an example. I don't know what you find unsharp about it; I can't see things on the website very well, but I can till you how I'd go about setting up for it. The photo is the second one, the one with the hillside and rock outcropping that slope up to the left.

I'd want to place my plane of sharp focus diagonally in this scene, laying it down a bit with tilt and then tipping it sideways a bit with swing so that the near right corner of the plane of sharp focus was the lowest and the far left was the highest (hope that makes sense). I'd pick two points on the vertical center axis for my tilt reference points, say halfway up that cholla in the foreground and halfway up the rock outcropping. I'd apply the tilt first. Then, I'd choose two reference points for the swing on the horizontal axis, say halfway up the slope on the left and the middle of the bright rock on the right. I'd then apply the tilt.

After that, I'd search around the scene, focusing on different things to find which are actually the "near" and "far" focus points, all the time keeping in mind where my plane of sharp focus lies. So, I'd check the tops of the rock outcropping and the tops of the near bushes/cacti for near points. Ideally, they should all be in focus at roughly the same position (if there are large discrepancies, I might rethink my movements). I'd find the one with the greatest bellows draw and call that "near" and note the position on the camera (my cameras all have scales on them). Then, I'd look around for the "far" (this time, something below the position of the plane of sharp focus), likely the hollow at the base of the outcropping or the ground near the camera. After finding the one that needs the least bellows draw, I'd note that position and then proceed as described above; finding focus spread and choosing aperture.

Sorry this got so long; I didn't have time to write a shorter response :)

Doremus


Doremus,

You totally outdid yourself. I love this post. So thoughtful and I totally followed you. I can see why you are suggesting swing, but that didn’t even occur to me in the moment.

Thank you so much. This is a post I will be saving to reread over a few more times.

Adam

[Old_Dick]

You and me Adam. DS is always good reading.

[Alan Klein]

And cameras with asymmetrical tilt on the rear standard, I focus far let's say half up the mountain lining up the far line on the ground glass and then tilting the rear back for the close element, stopping down to f22. How could I make that better?

[John Layton]

Here is an example I've lifted directly from my recent post in the LF Images section. First, the image...followed by process notes:

214381

There are three major object plane angles in my image...the foreground fence which goes to the left, the building wall - congruent to the first mentioned plane but at a different distance, and the fence section starting at the right and ending at the building. The lawn is yet another plane, which I consider to be less important here. The roof is yet another...which does not worry me at all as it is dark, plus not so challenging as the lawn.

I took this photo a number of years ago...but looking at it now, I can imagine that I'd first want to swing the front (or rear) to establish focus of both the extreme right fence post and the extreme left of the building in this image - then swing back from this, so that now the fourth post from the right (of the fence running to the building) would be in focus, and pull back a bit so the extreme right of the building is now just a bit fuzzy. Then, I'd want to tilt the lens down...just a bit, to attempt to accommodate the roof plane, which would bring this plane forward to bisect the front-left fence at about 1/4 up from the bottom of the frame.

Then I'd stop down quite a bit. Likely to right between f/32 and f/45. A bit risky with such a short(ish) FL - I'm also almost certain that I went right to a red filter for this image...which would help restore some of the apparent sharpness which may have otherwise been lost to diffraction.

Do keep in mind that the two aspects in my favor are...One - I'm using a 90mm lens, so visible DOF will tend to fall off a bit less than it would with a longer FL. And two - the right side of the building and the right side of the fence are in pretty deep shadow...which gives me an opportunity to be more "neglectful" of those areas, focus-wise - making my task a bit easier. If you look closely at these shadow areas, they are indeed just a bit fuzzier than the brighter parts.

At any rate...lots of little compromises here and there - but I do think I pulled it off (just barely!).

[Drew Bedo]

Many years ago a workshop leader said something like . . ."The ground glass it truth." Meaning is i is not seen on th gg it will not be in the negative.

Along with doing much of the five steps in the OP one of the things I also do is to actually put a focusing target or several of them into the composition. assy to do with a table top still life, it can also often be done out doors. With a easily seen high contrast set of bar codes (or a black and white checked shirt) in the field of view , all the tilting and focusing in and stopping down can be done wit a higher degree of confidence.

Just be sure to tske these focvusing sids out of the composition before tripping the dhutter.

[Tin Can]

Good tips, I also use, including tiny flashlights for corners

In our Post-Reality Photo Art era, I am going to include my markers occasionally

as they are Truth


Many years ago a workshop leader said something like . . ."The ground glass it truth." Meaning is i is not seen on th gg it will not be in the negative.

Along with doing much of the five steps in the OP one of the things I also do is to actually put a focusing target or several of them into the composition. assy to do with a table top still life, it can also often be done out doors. With a easily seen high contrast set of bar codes (or a black and white checked shirt) in the field of view , all the tilting and focusing in and stopping down can be done wit a higher degree of confidence.

Just be sure to tske these focvusing sids out of the composition before tripping the dhutter.

[GRAYnomad]

Good tips, I also use, including tiny flashlights for corners

In our Post-Reality Photo Art era, I am going to include my markers occasionally

as they are Truth

Yeah for dark images I've used a flashlight as well, works a treat. Dunno about leaving it in the shot though :D

[AdamD]

I have a coach/teacher I like to use as well as this forum. One of the first things he said was, all 4 images were not a good candidates for using any kind of tilt. The simple reason is that the highest nearest object protruded up from the bottom of the image (top of the GG downward) by 20%. You can see in all 4 images I have that going on.

This rule (and fact) pisses me off because everywhere I shoot I will have that problem!! After I complained about that for a while he just laughed at me. That made it worse.

Fact is, I hate to admit it, but he's right. As a result of tilting, I caused areas in the middle to be soft.

Anyway, he walked me through a lot of composition problems and made me answer a lot of hard questions that I didn't have any good answers for.

No one in this forum told me this shit is hard!!!! LOL. Ok that's not true. But it's still fun and makes me really appreciate that this is a marathon and I'm on mile 7 (maybe).

Thanks for the tips!!

[Michael R]

I told you to get the Stroebel book.

One thing people often don’t get right when they are taught to tilt and swing - while tilts and swings are useful for changing the orientation of the plane of sharp focus, they decrease depth of field. When you tilt your front standard forward, your depth of field is now a wedge-shaped space extending forward from the camera.


I have a coach/teacher I like to use as well as this forum. One of the first things he said was, all 4 images were not a good candidates for using any kind of tilt. The simple reason is that the highest nearest object protruded up from the bottom of the image (top of the GG downward) by 20%. You can see in all 4 images I have that going on.

This rule (and fact) pisses me off because everywhere I shoot I will have that problem!! After I complained about that for a while he just laughed at me. That made it worse.

Fact is, I hate to admit it, but he's right. As a result of tilting, I caused areas in the middle to be soft.

Anyway, he walked me through a lot of composition problems and made me answer a lot of hard questions that I didn't have any good answers for.

No one in this forum told me this shit is hard!!!! LOL. Ok that's not true. But it's still fun and makes me really appreciate that this is a marathon and I'm on mile 7 (maybe).

Thanks for the tips!!

[Doremus Scudder]

I have a coach/teacher I like to use as well as this forum. One of the first things he said was, all 4 images were not a good candidates for using any kind of tilt. The simple reason is that the highest nearest object protruded up from the bottom of the image (top of the GG downward) by 20%. ...

I'm not so sure I agree with the "20%-rule." As I mentioned, I'd have certainly used some movements in the image I discussed. Besides, not all "foreground" objects are equal. If your foreground is really close, and you have a vertical object, then that does, indeed, limit the effectiveness of movements. However, if your "foreground" is 20 feet from your camera, then the situation is different.

Also, I tend to use a bit of forward tilt in a lot of architectural shots, where "common wisdom" says that you don't use tilts at all. Often, I can save a whole stop's worth of depth of field.

The proof of whether or not movements can more optimally place the plane of sharp focus is in the focus spread. If you can apply movements and reduce the focus spread between "near" and "far" points, then the movements are doing some good.

If I'm in doubt as to whether movements are helping, that's what I do.

BTW, the Leslie Stroebl book that Michael refers to is the Bible AFAIC. It takes some study time, but is well-worth the effort. That's how I learned.

Best,

Doremus

[Michael R]

Doremus, regarding your architecture/small forward tilt example, fun “possible factoid”, I have it on good authority Ansel Adams did this for the well known vertical aspens picture as the light had faded substantially by the time he had set up for it. Off topic but anyway.

Michael


I'm not so sure I agree with the "20%-rule." As I mentioned, I'd have certainly used some movements in the image I discussed. Besides, not all "foreground" objects are equal. If your foreground is really close, and you have a vertical object, then that does, indeed, limit the effectiveness of movements. However, if your "foreground" is 20 feet from your camera, then the situation is different.

Also, I tend to use a bit of forward tilt in a lot of architectural shots, where "common wisdom" says that you don't use tilts at all. Often, I can save a whole stop's worth of depth of field.

The proof of whether or not movements can more optimally place the plane of sharp focus is in the focus spread. If you can apply movements and reduce the focus spread between "near" and "far" points, then the movements are doing some good.

If I'm in doubt as to whether movements are helping, that's what I do.

BTW, the Leslie Stroebl book that Michael refers to is the Bible AFAIC. It takes some study time, but is well-worth the effort. That's how I learned.

Best,

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

If I had to think through everything mentioned so far on this thread, it would appear the shortest distance between two points is a convoluted maze. Fortunately, that Stroebl book does include pictures. It ain't all that complicated after a bit of practice. ... And for the record, when I use view cameras, movements are involved about 98% of the time. They exist for a reason.

[Michael R]

I’m surprised you use movements nearly all the time for non-studio work, although I assume that includes rise/fall/shift. For my pictures I use those a lot, but rarely tilt/swing.


If I had to think through everything mentioned so far on this thread, it would appear the shortest distance between two points is a convoluted maze. Fortunately, that Stroebl book does include pictures. It ain't all that complicated after a bit of practice. ... And for the record, when I use view cameras, movements are involved about 98% of the time. They exist for a reason.

[Oren Grad]

I've been at this game for 25 years now. It's been many years since I last used any swing or tilt. The kinds of pictures I take have things sprouting all over the place, and the main effect of applying non-parallel movements is to introduce distracting focus artifacts.

I think the emphasis on movements as the hallmark of large format photography is unfortunate and a disservice to beginners. They are not a general solution to depth-of-field problems; they're a specialized tool for specialized situations.

[John Layton]

Not with emphasis...but to see it as part of the whole - that movements are but one of our many tools which, when used intelligently, thoughtfully, and with intention...can be great allies in helping us to get to the heart of what moves us. No more, no less.

[AdamD]

I told you to get the Stroebel book

Michael R, I bought the book.

[Vaughn]

I use every movement the camera can make for every image I make -- it just happens I use many of the movements zeroed out a lot.

[reddesert]

I'm guessing there are distinctions in use: many amateurs now concentrate on landscape or perhaps portrait LF photography. While in the days when LF photography was a heavy professional tool and students were reading Stroebel's book for photography classes, there was likely a lot of training for product and architecture photography, where perspective and focus control via movements is more commonly needed.

I also think that reading a book like Stroebel or Steve Simmons is generally helpful, also to keep around as a reference.

[Oren Grad]

I'm guessing there are distinctions in use: many amateurs now concentrate on landscape or perhaps portrait LF photography. While in the days when LF photography was a heavy professional tool and students were reading Stroebel's book for photography classes, there was likely a lot of training for product and architecture photography, where perspective and focus control via movements is more commonly needed.

Bingo!

[Alan Klein]

I've been at this game for 25 years now. It's been many years since I last used any swing or tilt. The kinds of pictures I take have things sprouting all over the place, and the main effect of applying non-parallel movements is to introduce distracting focus artifacts.

I think the emphasis on movements as the hallmark of large format photography is unfortunate and a disservice to beginners. They are not a general solution to depth-of-field problems; they're a specialized tool for specialized situations.

Owen, could you explain why in more detail and the kind of pictures you take? Any samples we can see?

[John Layton]

No...the main effect of applying non-parallel movements is whenever one's vision/intent/interpretation requires it, and thank goodness that we have the tools which allow us to do this!

I now feel compelled to re-post my earlier "example" image. Now, go back and read my setup text...and ask yourself - "how would this image be different...without any movements?" Answer...hugely different - and for me, a failure to be faithful to my intentions and a complete waste of my time. But for someone else? Could be completely different (no movements, extreme movements, whatever) and work for them, and be a powerful statement for the rest of us also. No rules here, but just try to respect that we are all different...and thank goodness!

214441

...yet another example - utilizing an "extreme" front tilt:

214443

(does not appear nearly as "bitingly sharp" here as the actual image...which I've enlarged to 30x40, and will soon go to 40x60. Bringing the focal plane congruent with the object plane allows me, especially here - seeing as how I really didn't need to introduce much extra depth to this, to utilize my lens' "best" aperture - very important to me in this for this specific image).

[Michael R]

Michael R, I bought the book.

Good! It’s a very good resource.

[Vaughn]

...
I think the emphasis on movements as the hallmark of large format photography is unfortunate and a disservice to beginners. They are not a general solution to depth-of-field problems; they're a specialized tool for specialized situations.

And brakes on a car are specialized tools for specialized situations...such as stopping. I use them when I need them. And certainly do not use them when I do not need them. I am glad we teach beginners how to use them...and place great emphasis on them.

Most beginners in LF have experience of using film cameras or digital cameras. They have been using cameras that have no movements and usually have a ton of experience creating images without movements. Teaching beginners about movements from the first time they handle a LF is like teaching student drivers where the brakes are and when to use them before they even leave the curb.

[Michael R]

The second photo (very nice, by the way) is one of those classic tilt examples. Indeed when you have a relatively “planar” receding object field it makes perfect sense.

At the same time, I think the points made by Oren and reddesert are good ones, especially for someone relatively new to view camera technique. In more situations than one might assume, tilts/swings are at best solving/lessening one problem at the expense of creating/worsening another problem. There are some real “gotchas”, especially when using tilt and swing at the same time as they are not independent in their effects.


No...the main effect of applying non-parallel movements is whenever one's vision/intent/interpretation requires it, and thank goodness that we have the tools which allow us to do this!

I now feel compelled to re-post my earlier "example" image. Now, go back and read my setup text...and ask yourself - "how would this image be different...without any movements?" Answer...hugely different - and for me, a failure to be faithful to my intentions and a complete waste of my time. But for someone else? Could be completely different (no movements, extreme movements, whatever) and work for them, and be a powerful statement for the rest of us also. No rules here, but just try to respect that we are all different...and thank goodness!

214441

...yet another example - utilizing an "extreme" front tilt:

214443

(does not appear nearly as "bitingly sharp" here as the actual image...which I've enlarged to 30x40, and will soon go to 40x60. Bringing the focal plane congruent with the object plane allows me, especially here - seeing as how I really didn't need to introduce much extra depth to this, to utilize my lens' "best" aperture - very important to me in this for this specific image).

[Peter De Smidt]

When I look back on my large format technique, I often use front rise and a very small amount of tilt, and that's about it. Sure, there are exceptions.

[Oren Grad]

I didn't say, and don't believe, that there's anything wrong with people who understand how tilts/shifts work using them to produce visual effects that they want. My point simply was, and remains, that they are of much narrower utility than is usually implied, and in particular, that they are not a general solution to depth of field problems, and that it is a disservice to convey to beginners, either explicitly or by omission, that they are. On the contrary, an important lesson is that many pictures that you can see with your mind's eye cannot be made in reality with these tools. (Think also of Dan Fromm's cautions to newcomers who want to use LF for macro work.) For someone who values deep focus over all else, and who works with non-planar subjects well short of effective infinity, focus-stacked digital captures will be the medium of choice. But everything has tradeoffs: that technique is limited to subjects that sit still enough to allow for multiple captures similar enough to be stackable without obvious artifacts. (Or if you like overt digital processing artifacts that's fine too, but then you're playing a different game.)

On a separate note, although my gripe here is about tilts and swings, I should add that I employ even parallel movements much less than I used to. After a while I started to get tired of pictures that scream "look how stretched I am!" For my taste, special techniques are usually most effective when they don't call attention to themselves. (But again: if you *want* obviously exaggerated effects, have at it!)

[Tin Can]

I like the old perspective control enlarger advertisements, showing extreme tilts in 2 dimensions

I have tried that a few times

and don't now

I am not buying the app
https://www.snapi.org/tilt-calculator/

[Heroique]

My point simply was, and remains, that they are of much narrower utility than is usually implied, and in particular, that they are not a general solution to depth of field problems, and that it is a disservice to convey to beginners, either explicitly or by omission, that they are.

Naturally I’m curious about who’s responsible for this disservice to beginners. Are you referring to well-known authors, workshop instructors, or maybe online experts? I mean the people who are implying to beginners that movements have wider utility than they actually do. Is there a concrete example you can offer? Quoting or paraphrasing this misleading language and identifying the source would be helpful and revealing.

[Corran]

Every LF beginner I have ever known and most new practitioners on this site do exactly as one would expect when presented with their first opportunity to use movements - overuse them. Oren is 100% correct. I read Adams' 'The Camera' cover-to-cover and did the same thing, used too much tilt/swing in my first images. Of course this isn't Adams' fault, it's the natural propensity of newbies to think movements are a magic panacea to all the DOF problems in the scene.

What's that saying - when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail? Of course this tendency is even more apparent after 20 different people give their personal opinion over 6 pages of forum posts on how best to utilize movements - ignoring the fact that they have years of experience, may not shoot the same subjects, or have very different needs in their photos. Heck, I've shot a lot of film with movements that further reduce DOF for effect.

Most of my tilts would not even look like tilts if you saw a picture of the camera in use - while in books, the illustrations often show extremely exaggerated movements to illustrate the point. We should strive to not over-sell the use of movements in every shot and/or extreme tilts/swings as a cure-all for DOF.

[William Whitaker]

i need a t-shirt with this printed on it. :)

+1!

8-)

[William Whitaker]

Close the books [websites...], load some film, go out and shoot! So sorry that Polaroid is no more... What a great learning tool that was!
But use the camera and practice, practice, practice. You will find your path. And it will be the right one... - for You.
Books and theories are great. But for learning, hands-on is the way to go!

[ic-racer]

How does one detect over-use movements? You the only thing I can think of is this effect below. Do all beginners still do this, I thought the fad wore off. In terms of rear rise, fall, or shift, how would one detect that they over shifted? Like how would you know the photographer's suspected unachieved intent?






214453

[Vaughn]

...For my taste, special techniques are usually most effective when they don't call attention to themselves...

I agree, I just do not think swings and tilts are "special techniques". Point and shoot LF cameras are the 'special' ones.:cool:

And in learning -- it is always good to take things too far. Twist that camera up! Find out what it does and back-up if you need to. Then one learns how much movements an image may or may not need.

I taught 4x5 camera use for years to new students. To tell students to not use the movements, not to experiment and not to take things too far would be a great dis-service to the students.

[Benjamin]

Every LF beginner I have ever known and most new practitioners on this site do exactly as one would expect when presented with their first opportunity to use movements - overuse them. Oren is 100% correct. I read Adams' 'The Camera' cover-to-cover and did the same thing, used too much tilt/swing in my first images. Of course this isn't Adams' fault, it's the natural propensity of newbies to think movements are a magic panacea to all the DOF problems in the scene.

What's that saying - when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail? Of course this tendency is even more apparent after 20 different people give their personal opinion over 6 pages of forum posts on how best to utilize movements - ignoring the fact that they have years of experience, may not shoot the same subjects, or have very different needs in their photos. Heck, I've shot a lot of film with movements that further reduce DOF for effect.

Most of my tilts would not even look like tilts if you saw a picture of the camera in use - while in books, the illustrations often show extremely exaggerated movements to illustrate the point. We should strive to not over-sell the use of movements in every shot and/or extreme tilts/swings as a cure-all for DOF.

I think a lot of people like me, who are "newbies" in large format but have a long experience in 35mm or medium format photography, come to large format because of the possibility of movements but understand that they don't simplify things but are an added degree of complexity. None of my first photos have tilts or swing because I want to see what the DoF problems are before I attempt to see how I will solve them.

This is why I don't see threads like this like an invitation to swing and tilt like crazy, but rather as a way to better understand the possibilities of the instrument I have in my hand and how they differ from those of the 35mm of the 6x6 TLR I had in my hand yesterday.

Photography is like maths - all about problem-solving: for some stuff I may only need a pencil; for others, I will need a compass, and I'll have to understand when, and how the blasted thing works.

[Corran]

Well like I said, everyone I know personally and many on this site I have seen go in thinking they need more movements than necessary for DOF. Of course they should try it and experiment/practice - never would I say otherwise. I also personally work with a lot of younger people who may or may not approach things differently than many here.

About comparisons to math - I will reiterate what I said on page 1, throw out the math. It's mostly irrelevant. I know you were making an analogy but I really dislike the tendency for photography to become a numbers game - with all kinds of equations and other stuff standing in the way of SEEING. But perhaps that's another thread.

[Oren Grad]

Like how would you know the photographer's suspected unachieved intent?

I cannot know a photographer's unverbalized intent. Ultimately all I can say is whether something works for me.

Some of this debate is really about what kinds of effects should be considered desirable, but that's a matter of context, purpose and subjective taste, not of absolute rules.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, that explains our difference in orientation, Oren. I recommended getting a handle on movements FIRST because that is how I learned depth of field control using a view camera VERSUS conventional smaller gear. Otherwise, it's just an ordinary camera but bigger. For example, learning front/rear tilt can potentially put things in acute focus all the way from your own toes to a mile away, even with a relatively long lens; doing so based on lens theory alone would be impossible. Studio tabletop product photography is unthinkable without use of movements. Point-blank studio portraiture might not need movements; but I can't imagine LF environmental portraiture without at least that option being available. As far as I'm concerned, the availability of movements like swing and tilt is the no.1 solution to depth of field issues, the very first thing I think of. Even small format manufacturers have figured that out, and are now offering special tilt lenses, though these are only a partial substitute for the full movements view cameras provide.

[Oren Grad]

Of course they should try it and experiment/practice - never would I say otherwise.

+1.

One of the hazards of this kind of discussion is that people extrapolate from what you say to argue against things you didn't say and didn't mean. Yes, I make that mistake too sometimes.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I take a hard position, not for the sake of discounting other methods which apply well to others, but as an illustration that in certain cases like mine, movements are basically the name of the game. One specific reason is that I generally prefer the look achieved by long focal-length lenses versus "normal" or wide-angle ones. And in that case, depth of field becomes quite a problem if tilts and swings aren't factored, especially in 8x10 work.

[Corran]

How does one detect over-use movements? You the only thing I can think of is this effect below.

214453

FWIW, this is not "over-use of movements," this is specifically the use of backwards tilt to achieve the "miniature" look, similar to shooting small toys models in macro range with extremely limited DOF. This practice was in vogue with digital photographers with their new shiny T/S lenses for a while, and I still see it occasionally at art fests and the like...

[Oren Grad]

Well, I take a hard position, not for the sake of discounting other methods which apply well to others, but as an illustration that in certain cases like mine, movements are basically the name of the game.

Agree on both counts - one size doesn't fit all, and if you need it, and your photographic tasks lend themselves to it, then by all means!

[Michael R]

Well, that explains our difference in orientation, Oren. I recommended getting a handle on movements FIRST because that is how I learned depth of field control using a view camera VERSUS conventional smaller gear. Otherwise, it's just an ordinary camera but bigger. For example, learning front/rear tilt can potentially put things in acute focus all the way from your own toes to a mile away, even with a relatively long lens

Yes indeed, assuming your subject is a mile long flat surface.

[Tin Can]

Not sure who benefits from experts debating

I took a break, drank a beer in the Sun. Good

Then found this guy, who has a page describing it all with useful pictures

https://www.alexbond.com.au/understanding-large-format-camera-movements

The first ever movement I tried was close focus, with the wrong box/lens, indoors. Finally I got there...

Then rise/fall and shift looking at GG and subject. I found that fascinating

The rest comes much later in learning

[Vaughn]

... As far as I'm concerned, the availability of movements like swing and tilt is the no.1 solution to depth of field issues, the very first thing I think of...
I work along the same lines, so I am biased in that direction. I think about it as image management on the GG, with depth of field being just one of the factors I am working with. In my mind's eye I have the image semi-constructed and includes a sense of the DoF I want. The next step is to set up the camera and fine-tune that image on the GG. It is that image management that has helped to keep LF around. The large negatives are nice, too...
But alas -- anything tool that helps can also hinder.

[Drew Wiley]

Mile-long flat surfaces aren't in my wheelhouse, Michael. Around here contour maps are drawn in either 200ft or 500ft intervals, with the darker lines at thousand foot intervals, not in millimeters like in Kansas, where the highest mountain differs every morning depending on what the cattle left behind the day before. But even if a cornfield is the subject, Schiempflug still applies (I just pulled my own copy of Stroebel to check the spelling of that), especially if someone has placed a platform atop their van or truck roof to take advantage of the bigger perspective. The other strategies come into play next. No, not everything ls going to be in perfect focus,
regardless; but that's not the point anyway. The objective is to intelligently control the distribution of focus to the advantage of the composition itself, and not just as a default to what a certain lens can do by itself, with or without some fancy math.

Now out in the Great Basin, Nevada or Death Valley, for example, one does encounter flat playas many miles long, the Bonneville Salt Flats Speedway being a remarkable example of that. I bagged a sudden dramatic moonrise almost by accident near there a few years, which actually reflected in the salt and nearby shallow brine pools. But alas, I didn't even have time to set up the view camera, the light was changing so fast. So I grabbed the 6X7 instead, and did indeed employ hyperfocal theory. So I know how to do that. The print came out great.

[h2oman]

i need a t-shirt with this printed on it. :)

no!!

[Michael R]

Kansas is on my bucket list.


Mile-long flat surfaces aren't in my wheelhouse, Michael. Around here contour maps are drawn in either 200ft or 500ft intervals, with the darker lines at thousand foot intervals, not in millimeters like in Kansas, where the highest mountain differs every morning depending on what the cattle left behind the day before. But even if a cornfield is the subject, Schiempflug still applies (I just pulled my own copy of Stroebel to check the spelling of that), especially if someone has placed a platform atop their van or truck roof to take advantage of the bigger perspective. The other strategies come into play next. No, not everything ls going to be in perfect focus,
regardless; but that's not the point anyway. The objective is to intelligently control the distribution of focus to the advantage of the composition itself, and not just as a default to what a certain lens can do by itself, with or without some fancy math.

Now out in the Great Basin, Nevada or Death Valley, for example, one does encounter flat playas many miles long, the Bonneville Salt Flats Speedway being a remarkable example of that. I bagged a sudden dramatic moonrise almost by accident near there a few years, which actually reflected in the salt and nearby shallow brine pools. But alas, I didn't even have time to set up the view camera, the light was changing so fast. So I grabbed the 6X7 instead, and did indeed employ hyperfocal theory. So I know how to do that. The print came out great.

[Drew Wiley]

Mine too. My sarcastic comment about Kansas was based on a spoof topographic map I gave to a co-worker from Nebraska, next to Kansas. I would particularly like to visit the Sand Hills region, which is of course not completely flat like the stereotype of the Plains. But flying over that area for the first time was a bit of a shock to me. In fact, the entire country east of the Rocky Mountain Front is all remarkably flat and farmed out with a few exceptions, like the Missouri River Gorge and the brief ripple of the Appalachian range. I actually went into claustrophobia looking out the widow high up in a Dallas hotel once on a business trip, sweaty palms and all. It was the first time I'd ever been surrounded by "nothingness". No mountains in sight anywhere, no forests, not even any bums or flower stands on the downtown streets on weekends. Sterile, and flat every direction.

[AdamD]

So, what is this thread about? I forgot.

[AdamD]

So check it out....I shot a couple more today. They are drying now. I kind screwed one up (1-stop under exposed). Once I get them scanned and cleaned up I post them. And we can blow this thread up even more!!!

[Tin Can]

https://www.alexbond.com.au/turner-street-jetty-augusta-australia/

with story how to

[Alan Klein]

I'm new to 4x5; just started last year. So now this thread has me more confused than ever. I was told in the beginning to usually use a little back tilt on the rear standard when I shot landscapes, my usual photos. I have a Chamonix with asymmetrical tilts on the rear standard. So I focus on the far and tilt for the near. Set at f/22. I think it's working for me but now I don't know after reading all this. It's bad enough everything is upside down on the GG, my glasses fog up under the dark cloth, and I need a third hand for the loupe. Now you guys want me to make complicated decisions beyond what I thought I'd need. You're giving me a headache. :)

[AdamD]

I started this thread trying to understand why we focus at the mid point between the max forward and max rear standard position as compared to digital strategies the often use the "focus 1/3 of the way into your delpth of field". I didn't understand the reason.

Somewhere in this thread the answer is written!

I gotta find it now....here it is....



Quote Originally Posted by reddesert View Post
Other people have explained that the 1/3 rule of thumb isn't really accurate. It also predates digital BTW. But anyway, the simple explanation for the difference in these rules of thumb is that the 1/3 rule applies to the distance in the subject space, like your subject is from 10 to 40 feet away so you focus at 20 feet. The rule you quote for 4x5 of focusing at the mid-point is in the image space, where you're splitting the positions of the standard corresponding to near and far in half.

Because the relation between image distance from the lens and subject distance from the lens is not linear, these rules of thumb are less different then you might imagine. The difference is not that 35mm/digital has a different DOF from 4x5. Rather, it's mechanical: in 35mm/digital you're usually looking at the focusing distance scale of a lens that gives subject distance, while with an LF camera you can more easily measure the position of the image (the standard).


BOOM!!

[Vaughn]

Alan, stop listening to things people say. Especially things like:


I was told in the beginning to usually use a little back tilt on the rear standard when I shot landscapes, my usual photos.

It is all on the GG. Upside down is good! It helps to remind us we are making images with light, not things.

[Oren Grad]

I think it's working for me but now I don't know after reading all this.

What are your negatives telling you?

[Alan Klein]

What are your negatives telling you?

Some seem pretty good. Others not so good. But I'm still having problems with the "fiddly" nature of large format.

[Michael R]

Some seem pretty good. Others not so good. But I'm still having problems with the "fiddly" nature of large format.

Practice/experience will help you, of course, but LF is fiddly. It's the way it is.

[Alan Klein]

Practice/experience will help you, of course, but LF is fiddly. It's the way it is.

There's a lot to be said for simplicity.

[AdamD]

Ok here are a couple new ones. This first image is the one I screwed up with my exposure. I think I did a reasonable job of recovering some detail. I also added a couple crop options. The second image came out really nice I think. Thoughts on that one??

https://fountainphoto.smugmug.com/Film-Photography/Large-Format-Photography/Iron-Mountain/


I also dropped in a couple color shots. The river picture is E100 and the lantana bush is Velvia 100. The lantana picture was a fun one. I used a TON of tilt and looked for the spot I could get the entire bush in focus. The background of course is soft, but that's on purpose. Thoughts on these....

https://fountainphoto.smugmug.com/Film-Photography/Large-Format-Photography/Random-Color/

[Corran]

Perhaps you should mention what movements you used as well as the lens, aperture, etc.

[AdamD]

Perhaps you should mention what movements you used as well as the lens, aperture, etc.

Ok for the black & white photo of the edge of the mountain....
Delta 100. Normal development 5 min pre-soak, 6 minutes developer (HC-110), 1 min stop, 5 minutes Fix, 5 min rinse
150mm Rodenstock 1/4 sec. f/22 on an Arca-Swiss F-Line Classic
Far focus point was the top left of the mountain. Tilt (using MicroOrbix...not that that matters) was the horizontal Palo Verde branch at the center bottom of the frame
The darkest area of the mountain, just right of center metered 1/2 second at f/22 ISO 100, same with the lower dark area. The highlights in the sky was 5 stops brighter so normal development was OK. I used a yellow (#15) filter resulting in a 1/4 second exposure at f/22 (1/2 dark shadow, under expose that by 2 stops to set middle grey Zone V) and then compensate for the 1 stop yellow filter ended up with 1/4 second.

The lantana shot....
Velvia 100. Normal development per E6 no changes.
150mm Rodenstock 1/30 f/25
This used a TON of tilt. My far focus point was the back top of the bush and may near tilt point was the closest and lowest flower (from the lower right corner, move over 25% to the left and come up 20% and there a flower. I used that as my tilt-for object. Normally with MicroOrbix is a focus-tilt-and-done kind of operations. This one took a few iterations to get right. If I were to shot parallel, the f-stop would have been f/50!!

As for metering, I took a bunch of readings all over the place and averaged them and at f/22 I was getting 1/40. I converted that to f/25 at 1/30. My Nikon D810 was agreeing and the exposure looked good so....

[Corran]

I feel like the left side of your b&w shot is unreasonably soft for such a simple shot with no side tilt. At f/22 with a touch of forward tilt everything should be razor sharp and well inside the "DOF."

What did it look like on the ground glass? Are you sure your camera is parallel, was there wind, or is your lens possibly suspect, or scanner having an issue? Just some questions I think you should ask yourself because that's about as simple as it gets in terms of focus and that left side would make me question everything in the imagining chain, not focus technique. I could be wrong though.

[Michael R]

Since the thread was about focusing/tilts/DoF, the second colour picture includes a telltale tilt/swing artifact to make sure you are aware of. Notice how the railing is increasingly out of focus toward the bottom, even though it is essentially vertically square with the “viewer”. One naturally expects changes in focus due to DoF in a receding space, but not vertically at a fixed horizontal distance.

Before anyone loses their sh$t, I’m not saying this is absolutely verboten and ruins everything etc. etc., and of course it might be a desired effect too. I’m just pointing it out as something to be aware of and watch for on the ground glass. It’s one of those potential “gotchas” with tilts and swings. Probably not the biggest deal in this particular example since the bush is clearly the intended subject, but you don’t want to end up with something more distracting in a different picture with more important vertical elements.


Ok here are a couple new ones. This first image is the one I screwed up with my exposure. I think I did a reasonable job of recovering some detail. I also added a couple crop options. The second image came out really nice I think. Thoughts on that one??

https://fountainphoto.smugmug.com/Film-Photography/Large-Format-Photography/Iron-Mountain/


I also dropped in a couple color shots. The river picture is E100 and the lantana bush is Velvia 100. The lantana picture was a fun one. I used a TON of tilt and looked for the spot I could get the entire bush in focus. The background of course is soft, but that's on purpose. Thoughts on these....

https://fountainphoto.smugmug.com/Film-Photography/Large-Format-Photography/Random-Color/

[Vaughn]

The latana image is interesting, but I would have approached it without as much tilt and allowed the background to go a little softer to match the degree of softness behind the fence (with tilting allowing for control of how out of focus the horizon line is.) I think this image depends a lot on what size it will be printed/presented to determine the right about of softness for the horizon. Interesting.

As a photographer, I see the background behind the fence and middle distances are out of focus, but the horizon and a few saguarros (sp) tops sticking up out of the middle ground are relatively sharp. It is a neat effect, and I think it creates some visual tension that actually might give the image a boost and make people wonder what is going on...without quite knowing why.

[AdamD]

I feel like the left side of your b&w shot is unreasonably soft for such a simple shot with no side tilt. At f/22 with a touch of forward tilt everything should be razor sharp and well inside the "DOF."

What did it look like on the ground glass? Are you sure your camera is parallel, was there wind, or is your lens possibly suspect, or scanner having an issue? Just some questions I think you should ask yourself because that's about as simple as it gets in terms of focus and that left side would make me question everything in the imagining chain, not focus technique. I could be wrong though.

VERY good catch. I noticed this in a photo I initially shared. I case of the earlier example, it turns out I had a touch (1/2 degree or less) of swing on the front standard. In this case with the mountain side, I can confirm there was ZERO swing. So, my conclusion was/is that the left side that is soft must have been caused by too much tilt and not noticing that on the GG.

I use a 4-peaks 4x loupe. Its very nice and wide field, but I sometimes think its too wide and I miss details.....

[AdamD]

Since the thread was about focusing/tilts/DoF, the second colour picture includes a telltale tilt/swing artifact to make sure you are aware of. Notice how the railing is increasingly out of focus toward the bottom, even though it is essentially vertically square with the “viewer”. One naturally expects changes in focus due to DoF in a receding space, but not vertically at a fixed horizontal distance.

Before anyone loses their sh$t, I’m not saying this is absolutely verboten and ruins everything etc. etc., and of course it might be a desired effect too. I’m just pointing it out as something to be aware of and watch for on the ground glass. It’s one of those potential “gotchas” with tilts and swings. Probably not the biggest deal in this particular example since the bush is clearly the intended subject, but you don’t want to end up with something more distracting in a different picture with more important vertical elements.


Michael R, no $hit lost here. I always like your feedback. Thank you.

Another excellent catch!! I love that you point this out because this was NOT intended in any way. I agree it was caused by too much tilt which easily through out the vertical in the fence. Yeah maybe I can get away with that here....but that's not why I'm posting these pictures. I want to detect these problems before I make them OR know what I'm getting into before I click. So, great feedback.

I did try swing only on this shot and I just could not seem to get the entire bush in sharp focus. So maybe a better approach would have been to use as MUCH tilt as possible WITHOUT blowing up the verticals on the fence and then stopping down more, say f/30 or maybe f/36 or whatever???

You guys are great!!

[Michael R]

I’m not that surprised you found it difficult to use swing and tilt simultaneously. It is not that straight forward. Tilt and swing each reduce depth of field but they are not independent either. They combine to give you a new shape of the depth of field. Suppose you have a receding subject like a flat road, and a wall along one side of the road. One might assume you can just figure out a tilt for the road and then swing for the wall. Doesn’t work that way.

One thing that can be worth doing to practice with movements when you aren’t out photographing, is to set up little scenarios on a table. You can use things like newspaper, pencils, anything. Light it so it is easy to see what is in/out of focus on the ground glass, and just try things. Near/far planes, vertical objects in foreground, background etc.


Michael R, no $hit lost here. I always like your feedback. Thank you.

Another excellent catch!! I love that you point this out because this was NOT intended in any way. I agree it was caused by too much tilt which easily through out the vertical in the fence. Yeah maybe I can get away with that here....but that's not why I'm posting these pictures. I want to detect these problems before I make them OR know what I'm getting into before I click. So, great feedback.

I did try swing only on this shot and I just could not seem to get the entire bush in sharp focus. So maybe a better approach would have been to use as MUCH tilt as possible WITHOUT blowing up the verticals on the fence and then stopping down more, say f/30 or maybe f/36 or whatever???

You guys are great!!

[Bob Salomon]

I’m not that surprised you found it difficult to use swing and tilt simultaneously. It is not that straight forward. Tilt and swing each reduce depth of field but they are not independent either. They combine to give you a new shape of the depth of field. Suppose you have a receding subject like a flat road, and a wall along one side of the road. One might assume you can just figure out a tilt for the road and then swing for the wall. Doesn’t work that way.

One thing that can be worth doing to practice with movements when you aren’t out photographing, is to set up little scenarios on a table. You can use things like newspaper, pencils, anything. Light it so it is easy to see what is in/out of focus on the ground glass, and just try things. Near/far planes, vertical objects in foreground, background etc.

Michael, tilts and swings control the plane of sharp focus. Not the depth of field. Dof is controlled by aperture.

[AdamD]

Oh no....this thread is about to blow up again!!!

Michael R, thanks it makes sense what you're saying about tilt and swing and yes, you example is exactly what I was expecting to see and wasn't. Just as I'd get one just right, the other was screwed up....so I eventually found a balance. There's got to be a better way but it's above my skill grade!!!

So for tilt and swing and controlling DoF....we unfortunately the answer is yes, it does as Michael R pointed out. It's not a direct control as aperture is as Bob mentioned. But still, one thing has been proven to me, if you tilt, your effective DoF is not different than it was if you didn't tilt. Same with swing. So, while I agree with Bob it's not controlled, it is affected.

[CreationBear]

Props for convening the Mortality and Morbidity Committee--very useful for a fellow newbie like myself!

One of the things that struck me reading your description is that your far focus was on the tree at the top of the ridge (close enough to infinity for me) but you didn't mention doing a "near focus," such as on the blowdown at the bottom center of the frame.

Given the topography, this might have been a case where you needed to use your scales and aperture cheat sheet to find an optimal f-stop (not mention the notorious "hyperfocal"). If you did see the need for a bit of forward tilt, I'm going to posit that your "plane" would be most effective if it connected the foreground with the top of the center saguaro, since we naturally look for sharpness in the "near," especially when it's "busy," while we're used to detail softening at distance as it nears the horizon.

At any rate, that looks like a great country to explore...

[Michael R]

Hi Bob, yes, given a plane of focus aperture controls DoF. My point is simply that while tilts/swings are about reorienting the plane of focus, they also affect the shape of the depth of field (becomes wedge shaped projecting from the hinge line).


Michael, tilts and swings control the plane of sharp focus. Not the depth of field. Dof is controlled by aperture.

[AdamD]

Props for convening the Mortality and Morbidity Committee--very useful for a fellow newbie like myself!

One of the things that struck me reading your description is that your far focus was on the tree at the top of the ridge (close enough to infinity for me) but you didn't mention doing a "near focus," such as on the blowdown at the bottom center of the frame.

Given the topography, this might have been a case where you needed to use your scales and aperture cheat sheet to find an optimal f-stop (not mention the notorious "hyperfocal"). If you did see the need for a bit of forward tilt, I'm going to posit that your "plane" would be most effective if it connected the foreground with the top of the center saguaro, since we naturally look for sharpness in the "near," especially when it's "busy," while we're used to detail softening at distance as it nears the horizon.

At any rate, that looks like a great country to explore...

Creation Bear,

While I'm not entirely sure I'll answer your question or maybe the point you were making..... I'll try to explain what I was thinking.

With my camera which uses a form of base tilt, I focus on the tallest nearest point (top of the mountain) then I tilt for the lowest nearest point (the Palo Verde branch). This establishes my plane of focus. I then note the position of my rear standard on my rail. Considering I focus using the rear standard...

Then, I hunt around the area between those two points and search for the most out of focus area and bring that into sharp focus. If I'm correct, everything else should require that I move my rear standard closer to my starting point. Once I found that point, I note the rear standard position. That's my displacement.

Now, what I've been taught to do is take that number of mm displacement and multiple it by 5 to find the minimum aperture. Key word is minimum. So for instance, my starting point was at the 8.3mm mark and my near point of focus was at 8.7mm, that gives me a displacement of 4mm. Multiply that by 5 and I get 20. Or f/20 minimum.

In practice I often find the displacement to only be a couple mm. So f/10. But I don't think that's enough BUT again, it's a minimum....

Anyway, once I know my displacement (4mm), I split the difference and move my standard to the mid-point. In this example, I'd move it to 8.5mm, set at least f/20 and begin a short prayer.

If your camera uses axis tilt, like my old camera, I would instead focus on the near and tilt for the far. Also, my old camera didn't have rail markings so I'd just increased the length of my prayer.....it occasionally worked.

I'm finding the more I practice, the shorter my prayers are....funny how that works!

Hope this is helpful.

Now, as to your other point I think you were getting at, as in why was I doing it that way?

Well, I looked at the scene and saw that if I established an imaginary plane from the top of the mountain to that lower branch, every other object would fall BEHIND AND BELOW that plane. IF any object protrudes above that plane, those points that make the plane will not work or if course you accept that out of focus area, because you'll never get it right. So those points just worked. That being said, I think Michele R ponied out the left side near some taller trees were soft. That's because I think the plane I chose was awfully close to those trees and they probably broke through after I move the standard to the mid-point (8.5mm). They were good at 8.3mm, but, I didn't detect the problem with my loupe.

Now, you might also be asking why did I even choose to tilt in the first place??? Idk....if that's what you were asking, but here's the answer in two parts. Part 1. I wanted to use front tilt. So I did. Part 2, I felt that by tilting the plane of focus, I could get an overall sharper image at say, f/22 and NOT have to use f/32 or f/45 to achieve the same result. So to stay away from diffraction, I tilted.

[Alan Klein]

Could anyone tell me why the circled areas seem more out of focus? I was using asymmetrical tilt on my Chamonix with a 150mm. I focused far on the clouds on the asymmetrical line on the GG. Then I tilted the rear standard back to focus the fence on the near right. Note that the barn's leaning to the right on its left is actually the way it is. No left-right tilt was done. (Also, this is scan before I added sharpening overall)

[Alan Klein]

Here is the same picture larger and after sharpening overall.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/49843934826/in/album-72157714124881023/

[CreationBear]

Now, what I've been taught to do is take that number of mm displacement and multiple it by 5 to find the minimum aperture.


Interesting, the tables I use are a bit more conservative: taking negative size into consideration, a 4mm extension difference calls for f/22 + 2/3 (without tilt). But like my mama always told us, verum esse ipsum factum.

Otherwise, to add to all the great advice here, here's an article touching on the subject I found useful:
https://www.thedarkslides.com/using-calculators-in-large-format-photography/

Best of luck on the journey.

[Benjamin]

Could anyone tell me why the circled areas seem more out of focus? I was using asymmetrical tilt on my Chamonix with a 150mm. I focused far on the clouds on the asymmetrical line on the GG. Then I tilted the rear standard back to focus the fence on the near right. Note that the barn's leaning to the right on its left is actually the way it is. No left-right tilt was done. (Also, this is scan before I added sharpening overall)

If you defined your plane of sharp focus at a high angle - from beneath the camera straight to the clouds - it's possible that you've excluded stuff that lies under the lower depth of field plane.

Do you remember which aperture you used?

[pdmoylan]

To maximize DOF in any LF image, I was taught as follows:

1. Visualize the end product (image) you are seeking
2. Choose a lens which provides an appropriate Angle of View
3. For typical landscape scenes, set camera base parallel to the ground (assuming it is flat or relatively so).
4. Set back perpendicular to base (90 degrees) so that WYSIWYG from a linear distortion perspective. So film is essentially parallel to trees and buildings (again assuming no slope in the scene).
5. Determine the most efficient plane of focus. Without movements, that is the same as the film plane. With front tilt that diagonal changes to maximize DOF in the entire scene.
6. Whatever the Plane Of Focus, you will have an area in front of and behind the point of focus 1/3, 2/3)
7. The DOF for subjects that are closer to the camera is much less than those in the distance, so critical focus should be on subjects closest to the camera first.
8. Do not use rear tilt unless you cannot maximize DOF by using front tilt. Rear tilt creates linear distortion in the image and though not necessarily discernable in the final image, it adds a new dimension of adjustment which may not be ideal.
9. If the subject closest to the camera rises above the lower half of the GG, front tilt becomes less useful.
10. To set tilt for the farthest subject (i.e. trees, buildings etc), intersect the most salient point just below its highest point. Adjust tilt (and swing) by stopping down the aperture while viewing the DOF under the dark cloth.
11. Use Front Rise to adjust for converging lines as necessary
12. Use Front Swing very sparingly and only if you are not compromising one part of the image to maximize DOF in another part.
13. Use an appropriate aperture (don't hesitate to us F64 if necessary).

214602

Here is an image in which the front tilt was used to maximize DOF. Focused first on the foreground flowers, tilted to intersect just below the tops of the distant trees, stopped down to f16 gradually to see what was not in focus, adjusted tilt accordingly, stopped down to F45. 90MM Nikkor, Velvia 50.

There is an image by Jack Dykinga (no longer on his website but in one of his books), where he has created a hard core closeup (very close to the camera) of wild columbine flowers which filled the lower part of the image, and he tilted to include the distant mountain in focus. Even stopping down to F45 or beyond, and because critical focus and therefore very limited DOF was available for the high degree of magnification of the flowers, DOF was non-existent in flower stalks deep into the image, and he lost DOF on the lower valley below the mountain. My guess is that he used a 65mm or 75mm lens to create the image.

Another way to manage DOF in the image if you can't get it with movements, is to reduce the degree of foreground magnification by moving back, using wider angle lens etc, and cropping. Another option though not practical for LF is to use focusing stacking techniques.

[Vaughn]

Alan....You have near/far (fence and base of barn) right next to each other. They cannot exist on the same focus plane using just tilt.

[pdmoylan]

Plane of focus diagonal from just below top of fence to just below top of Conifer in the distance (not the clouds). A small amount of left swing might help as well. With a 150mm my guess is f32 should be sufficient.

[Alan Klein]

If you defined your plane of sharp focus at a high angle - from beneath the camera straight to the clouds - it's possible that you've excluded stuff that lies under the lower depth of field plane.

Do you remember which aperture you used?
F/22. 150mm lens.

[Alan Klein]

Alan....You have near/far (fence and base of barn) right next to each other. They cannot exist on the same focus plane using just tilt.

So the circled areas are out of focus because I needed swing too??

[John Layton]

Alan...it looks like you were in the ballpark (given your focus-goals for this image) with respect to image plane adjustment, except that you might have adjusted your actual focus to get a bit closer to those out of focus areas.

Additionally, you could have gone to f/32 to squeeze out a bit more DOF. This could help in another way also - that while a 150 may begin to show just a bit of diffraction at this aperture, the actual visible effects of this, on a print (unless it is to be very large) will be minimal...but may just be enough to "smooth over" any visible focus transitions between the actual, chemical focus plane and areas slightly away from this plane. I'm not talking about actual DOF here...but "perceived" DOF based on just a wee bit of diffraction occurring at the actual focus plane.

Perhaps we could add another definition here, as DOF can already be a bit subjective. I guess another way to express this would be to imagine that diffraction itself somehow did not exist...and that you could then be more or less free to stop the lens down to wherever (so long as other conditions did not interfere). Then, imagine what the visible DOF might look like...larger, yes, but with still markedly visible transitional cues. But then add diffraction back into the equation - and the exact focal plane begins to look a bit more like the very beginning of the transitional zone in our "impossible" (no diffraction) example (maybe not on a micro level, but a macro one), and thus the entire transitional zone appears to be extended further. (Not sure if I'm even making sense to myself at this point, but give this some thought).

Yet another ally here could be just to add a bit of (or a bit more of) contrast-adding filtration and/or processing ...which would further act to enhance the "illusion" of (in focus) sharpness (possibly at the expense of some deep shadow detail). Make sense?

[Michael R]

F/22. 150mm lens.

Alan, if this is repetitive apologies, but have you seen this type of diagram (attached)? It's a simplified picture to illustrate what goes on in the case of lens tilt (for example). Might help in visualizing what happens and aid in the discussion.214627

[Vaughn]

So the circled areas are out of focus because I needed swing too??

It might help, but you still might have trouble with that lower right area circled -- swing will make that area worse...you need to go to f45 or f64. The diagram above shows what happened. You just need to widen the DoF to include the ground by closing down the lens.

F22 sucks if it gives you out of focus areas -- not matter how 'sharp' they are. Sharp renditions of out-of focus-areas are still out of focus!

But don't forget that where you focus also is very important. Try this 'trick'. Once you have focused your camera and made your movements (try this on a simple scene), with the lens wide open, look at the GG as you slowly reduce the aperture. The near and the far will start to come into focus as you reduce the aperture. If they come into focus at the same time, then you have placed the focus well. If far comes into focus first, you might need to pull the focus in a little until they do (and the reverse if the near comes into focus first).

[Drew Wiley]

Unless you are using a precision vacuum or adhesive filmholder, f/22 might not compensate for even potential film sag, at least with 5x7 and larger formats. It's less of a factor with smaller 4x5 film. But the shorter the lens, the more significant lack of precise film plane we be, in terms of ACTUAL focus. None of the fancy-schmancy math on this thread takes into account that fact.

[Alan Klein]

Alan...it looks like you were in the ballpark (given your focus-goals for this image) with respect to image plane adjustment, except that you might have adjusted your actual focus to get a bit closer to those out of focus areas.

Additionally, you could have gone to f/32 to squeeze out a bit more DOF. This could help in another way also - that while a 150 may begin to show just a bit of diffraction at this aperture, the actual visible effects of this, on a print (unless it is to be very large) will be minimal...but may just be enough to "smooth over" any visible focus transitions between the actual, chemical focus plane and areas slightly away from this plane. I'm not talking about actual DOF here...but "perceived" DOF based on just a wee bit of diffraction occurring at the actual focus plane.

Perhaps we could add another definition here, as DOF can already be a bit subjective. I guess another way to express this would be to imagine that diffraction itself somehow did not exist...and that you could then be more or less free to stop the lens down to wherever (so long as other conditions did not interfere). Then, imagine what the visible DOF might look like...larger, yes, but with still markedly visible transitional cues. But then add diffraction back into the equation - and the exact focal plane begins to look a bit more like the very beginning of the transitional zone in our "impossible" (no diffraction) example (maybe not on a micro level, but a macro one), and thus the entire transitional zone appears to be extended further. (Not sure if I'm even making sense to myself at this point, but give this some thought).

Yet another ally here could be just to add a bit of (or a bit more of) contrast-adding filtration and/or processing ...which would further act to enhance the "illusion" of (in focus) sharpness (possibly at the expense of some deep shadow detail). Make sense?
If I was to use "digital" printing from a scan, then I would be adjusting contrast and sharpness when I edit in Lightroom. That shows in the larger link for that photo I showed above, copied here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alankl...7714124881023/ So, I suppose the original f/22 and "out-of-focus" areas will be better?

[Alan Klein]

Alan, if this is repetitive apologies, but have you seen this type of diagram (attached)? It's a simplified picture to illustrate what goes on in the case of lens tilt (for example). Might help in visualizing what happens and aid in the discussion.214627

Thanks for that. I just thought it was strange the way the portion in the middle came up slightly out of focus. I guess that has to dow with the movement I made? But it's hard for me to visualize.

[Michael R]

Thanks for that. I just thought it was strange the way the portion in the middle came up slightly out of focus. I guess that has to dow with the movement I made? But it's hard for me to visualize.

The diagram is meant to show how objects in those areas could potentially be out of focus even though objects farther away or closer are ok. Here is the same diagram with some objects/areas of your picture very roughly superimposed. Imagine we are looking at the whole setup from the side (to the right of the fence).

The yellow shaded area is outside the depth of field. You can see therefore that distant parts of the fence would be increasingly blurry. You can also see how the lowest parts of the building facade and the ground in front of it would also be out of focus since they are in the yellow zone (outside depth of field).

Disclaimer: Please note this is for illustrative purposes only, to show how this sort of artifact might be created. It's an exaggerated picture. There are also variables - how much tilt, points of focus chosen in determining tilt, and of course aperture (which determines how wide or narrow the wedge-shaped depth of field is). And who knows - as Drew noted film flatness is occasionally a wild card.

As an aside, referring back to Adam's second colour picture (bush), this diagram shows why in his case the railing goes from sharp (at the top) to blurry (at the bottom).

Different movement choices, chosen points of focus, and aperture can usually solve this type of problem. It takes some practice to get used to it, so don't be discouraged. I understand the initial frustration though. Theoretically this is all discernable on the groundglass (WYSIWYG) but it isn't always easy to see well. This is why in the end most people end up stopping down to at least f/22, usually more, plus "Kentucky windage", even if they think they've nailed it.

Technically there are formulas for figuring it all out, but good luck with that unless you want to send your surveyor out first. :)

Hope this helps.

214642

[Drew Wiley]

Sinar P and F cameras, and later certain other brands of monorails, had certain built-in methods of approximating depth of field in relation to tilts and swings, along with asymmetrical controls. I learned that method and understand why it is speeds up the efficiency of tabletop studio photography of catalog products, food photography, etc, where planes are artificially controlled. Then I promptly ignored it, and now even prefer the Norma version of Sinar prior to any of those innovations because they have little impact on the real world nature of my own work.

[Michael R]

Yes my Sinar A1 (a cheaper version of the F1) had that system. It worked pretty well and was very easy to use.

There’s the Linhof calculator and some others.

Most people seem to prefer eyeballing it using one of the old fashioned methods. And there aren’t many, if any field cameras with built in mechanisms like the Sinar anyway.

[Drew Wiley]

Beautiful day yesterday, and I was out on a long open ridge with the Norma, carrying both b&w and color film, relatively simple near-to-far subject matter. Pretty much just front tilt control, no brainer. But still, undulating planes were involved. So, after basic foreground to skyline accommodation using the tilt, and checking the loupe for that, I then picked out whatever detail or set of details within that particular scene I wanted in exact focus, just in case the shot came out worthy of being enlarged to big scale. That was all done wide-open. After the lens is stopped down, everything will be in acute focus, although I did have to make a bit of a compromise, f/22 vs f/32, for sake of a bit more shutter speed due to the wind. This kind of activity becomes intuitive with practice. I simply couldn't waste a lot of mental energy over it. I had other priorities. The light and cloud shapes were constantly changing, the wind gusts were unpredictable, and hikers and trail bikers intermittently appeared in the scene, so I had at most a 1 or 2 second opportunity in each case to get it right.

In such cases, all the technical details themselves need to be second nature. Will every shot come out ideal? Of course not. Not even Babe Ruth hit a home run every time he was up to bat. But I am confident something quite worthy of printing did transpire yesterday. But even if I had never pulled the camera out of the pack, it was a joy just to take it all in. Next week that same area is forecast to be too hot for me, and the color patterns will significantly change due to things drying out, about a month early this year due to moderate drought.

[Michael R]

Luckily my pictures are really all local “urban landscape” type so I’m nearly always limited to rise/fall/shift. Due to the type of pictures I take I never got very good at tilt/swing. I know the theory and the math but it isn’t worth a whole lot in the field. As you point out, you really need to get comfortable by doing it. Repetition etc. and it becomes more fluid. Most importantly, as you gain experience you are better able to judge/evaluate what’s in front of you and know what you will get from some amount of tilt etc. with some confidence. I never got there. But hopefully some basic visualizations will help Alan.


Beautiful day yesterday, and I was out on a long open ridge with the Norma, carrying both b&w and color film, relatively simple near-to-far subject matter. Pretty much just front tilt control, no brainer. But still, undulating planes were involved. So, after basic foreground to skyline accommodation using the tilt, and checking the loupe for that, I then picked out whatever detail or set of details within that particular scene I wanted in exact focus, just in case the shot came out worthy of being enlarged to big scale. That was all done wide-open. After the lens is stopped down, everything will be in acute focus, although I did have to make a bit of a compromise, f/22 vs f/32, for sake of a bit more shutter speed due to the wind. This kind of activity becomes intuitive with practice. I simply couldn't waste a lot of mental energy over it. I had other priorities. The light and cloud shapes were constantly changing, the wind gusts were unpredictable, and hikers and trail bikers intermittently appeared in the scene, so I had at most a 1 or 2 second opportunity in each case to get it right.

In such cases, all the technical details themselves need to be second nature. Will every shot come out ideal? Of course not. Not even Babe Ruth hit a home run every time he was up to bat. But I am confident something quite worthy of printing did transpire yesterday. But even if I had never pulled the camera out of the pack, it was a joy just to take it all in. Next week that same area is forecast to be too hot for me, and the color patterns will significantly change due to things drying out, about a month early this year due to moderate drought.

[Drew Wiley]

The nice thing about the Sinar monorail system is that you've got all the options; and the same gear works well for architectural use, studio usage, and typical landscape applications. And it's certainly portable enough for day use. But add two weeks worth of food and full mountain gear to that same pack, plus the 70+ age factor, and one should realistically forgive me for owning a couple of less versatile but significantly lighter wooden folders too.

[Michael R]

I have a monorail and a nice little folder, but I should never have replaced the Sinar. It was a dumb decision and always regretted it.


The nice thing about the Sinar monorail system is that you've got all the options; and the same gear works well for architectural use, studio usage, and typical landscape applications. And it's certainly portable enough for day use. But add two weeks worth of food and full mountain gear to that same pack, plus the 70+ age factor, and one should realistically forgive me for owning a couple of less versatile but significantly lighter wooden folders too.

[AdamD]

So what's this thread about now :confused::p

[Drew Wiley]

It's always been the same thread. If you don't think so, just get any old Sinar handbook and see how they describe the original topic - one of the best learner resources you can have, whether or not you use their own cameras. Simplifying this very depth of field topic was behind their key patents.

[Michael R]

So what's this thread about now :confused::p

Kansas?

[Drew Wiley]

Yep. Don't even go there if you haven't practiced tilts first. Don't even come here if you haven't. We have plenty of flat farmland of our own, between the mountain ranges; and much of it is very interesting photographically. Then there are vast deserts areas too. Doesn't get any flatter than a dry Ice Age lakebed. But frozen alpine lakes impose the same depth of field logistics, and I've sure done my share of those.

With a receding plane, and by approaching it using appropriate tilts, the "scene" you are "focusing into" becomes a continuum. There is no single point at play, like with a fixed position lens and film plane. The whole game actually becomes simplified, once you get accustomed to it.

[Vaughn]

Good point, Michael. Once one gains experience and bends the bellows a few times into a knot, learns what the camera movements can do, and that sort of thing, that experience and knowledge allows one to see possibilities otherwise missed.

[Alan Klein]

The diagram is meant to show how objects in those areas could potentially be out of focus even though objects farther away or closer are ok. Here is the same diagram with some objects/areas of your picture very roughly superimposed. Imagine we are looking at the whole setup from the side (to the right of the fence).

The yellow shaded area is outside the depth of field. You can see therefore that distant parts of the fence would be increasingly blurry. You can also see how the lowest parts of the building facade and the ground in front of it would also be out of focus since they are in the yellow zone (outside depth of field).

Disclaimer: Please note this is for illustrative purposes only, to show how this sort of artifact might be created. It's an exaggerated picture. There are also variables - how much tilt, points of focus chosen in determining tilt, and of course aperture (which determines how wide or narrow the wedge-shaped depth of field is). And who knows - as Drew noted film flatness is occasionally a wild card.

As an aside, referring back to Adam's second colour picture (bush), this diagram shows why in his case the railing goes from sharp (at the top) to blurry (at the bottom).

Different movement choices, chosen points of focus, and aperture can usually solve this type of problem. It takes some practice to get used to it, so don't be discouraged. I understand the initial frustration though. Theoretically this is all discernable on the groundglass (WYSIWYG) but it isn't always easy to see well. This is why in the end most people end up stopping down to at least f/22, usually more, plus "Kentucky windage", even if they think they've nailed it.

Technically there are formulas for figuring it all out, but good luck with that unless you want to send your surveyor out first. :)

Hope this helps.

214642

Thanks for the diagram. I understand it and it explains the situation well. I have to admit I have trouble seeing it intuitively. I shot it at f22; I suppose f32 would have helped a little.

[Michael R]

Yes, stopping down more would increase the depth of field "above" and "below" the plane of sharp focus.

But there are two other choices which might or might not help improve the situation (as I mentioned above). The amount of tilt, and the where you choose to focus, both/each rotate the plane of sharp focus along with that entire depth of field (the area between the red lines). So for example if that wedge was rotated downward a little more, by tilting more or focusing differently or usually a combination of both, the depth of field would include more of the yellow area. Of course you'd have to check to make sure the top of the building was still within the depth of field, maybe decide to stop down more etc. but you get the idea.

You can see that there is often more than one answer and it involves some judgement (in addition to checking things on the groundglass). You can also see that while you can "optimize" to some extent, it's still a compromise. For example, suppose you really wanted the building in perfect or near-uniform focus. You might decide to focus on the building, use less tilt, or no tilt etc. (I could do another diagram if you want).

The point is with practice/repetition this becomes a more intuitive process - as both Drew and Vaughn can vouch for. It will become more "routine" when you stand before a scene, to decide what to use as your near/far points of focus when figuring out your tilt or swing (and sometimes you'll find you're better off not tilting/swinging), choose your aperture etc.




Thanks for the diagram. I understand it and it explains the situation well. I have to admit I have trouble seeing it intuitively. I shot it at f22; I suppose f32 would have helped a little.

[pdmoylan]

I have many 30x40 prints from various commercial scans, and the detail and quality output with apertures between f32 nd f45 is incredible, assuming I have implemented proper technique otherwise. Especially with LF, I don't concern myself with diffraction, but obtaining the shot envisioned. So most of my images end at somewhere around F45 (as insurance). Taking more than one image at different F stops allows you the flexibility of throwing out the one which has insufficient DOF. For color chromes, obtaining correct exposure is key since these films have very little latitude. In those cases I will also vary exposures with different sheets to ensure I have a good one.

BTW Alan, check out Franklin Parker Preserve in SC New Jersey as a possible sight for image taking. Via Chatsworth. I just happened upon it venturing the net for Pine Barrens bog sites. I am considering it for my trip in early July.

PD

[pdmoylan]

P.S. I am reminded of both Stella Johnson and Sebastiao Salgado, for example, both of whom used Leicas and would stop down the lens well into diffraction territory to get as much in focus as possible. Many of their images are indelibly imprinted in my mind.

[Alan Klein]

I have many 30x40 prints from various commercial scans, and the detail and quality output with apertures between f32 nd f45 is incredible, assuming I have implemented proper technique otherwise. Especially with LF, I don't concern myself with diffraction, but obtaining the shot envisioned. So most of my images end at somewhere around F45 (as insurance). Taking more than one image at different F stops allows you the flexibility of throwing out the one which has insufficient DOF. For color chromes, obtaining correct exposure is key since these films have very little latitude. In those cases I will also vary exposures with different sheets to ensure I have a good one.

BTW Alan, check out Franklin Parker Preserve in SC New Jersey as a possible sight for image taking. Via Chatsworth. I just happened upon it venturing the net for Pine Barrens bog sites. I am considering it for my trip in early July.

PD

Thanks That's about an hour south from my home.

[Alan Klein]

P.S. I am reminded of both Stella Johnson and Sebastiao Salgado, for example, both of whom used Leicas and would stop down the lens well into diffraction territory to get as much in focus as possible. Many of their images are indelibly imprinted in my mind.

When I staterd shooting 35 years ago with my RB67 medium format, I read and then followed this advice I read about. Seems to work. I'd calculate the DOF I need. Then stop down one more stop for good measure.