Importance of back movements

[jrickards615]

I may be looking to buy a 4x5 field. My typical subject is what I've called intimate landscapes, subjects are typically 3-10m away. This means to me that, unlike a large vista, it is more likely that some component will close enough that distant ones will be out of focus or visa versa. I know that movements can solve this or at least help but a recent video on YouTube recommended that back movements are a better solution than front. I think that the only movement that is need on the back are tilt (pretty common) and swing (less common).

Am I right in thinking that these my photography would benefit from these movements?

[Mark Sampson]

The short answer is that back movements control perspective, and front movements control depth-of-field.
Most view cameras have a tilting back, very useful for getting verticals (in the picture) vertical. Rear swing is also common, again useful for perspective.
Rear shift and rear rise/fall can be important (for example when shooting architecture or tabletop) but are not absolutely necessary for general use.
Remember that many, many great photographs (in all genres) have been made with view cameras that had limited movements!

[Dugan]

As a new member here, you might want to use the search function.
This is a controversial subject here, with passionate (read: heated) discussions.
My advice is to find a copy of "Using the View Camera". Then find a monorail camera (borrow, rent), set it up, and play with the movements to reinforce what is in the book.
You can then decide if you need all or only some movements.
Anybody can make a YouTube video.

[Bernice Loui]

Most landscape view camera images made of objects at far distances often do not need much if any camera movements. This is why majority of lightweight field folders do not offer or need extensive camera movements.

Once the view camera images are of objects closer up and no longer at a far distance, the demands on camera movements can change lots. Decades ago, Calumet published this guide to view camera movements, give this a read and see if any of what is discussed applies to what you're trying to achieve with a view camera. Lens, camera choice, film format size and more is directly related and driven by image goals. Much about choosing the proper tools for getting it did.

https://www.properproof.com/largeformat/Guides/CalumetDigitalGuide1%20(2).pdf


Bernice

[Mark Sawyer]

Movements for depth-of-field, i.e., the "Scheimpflug Effect", only work when you have one part of the frame at one distance and another part of the frame at another distance, and you tilt/shift to have each part at its own focal distance.

From your description, "intimate landscapes, subjects are typically 3-10m away", it sounds like you're shooting a foreground with the background directly behind it. Movements won't help there, only small apertures.

[Bob Salomon]

The short answer is that back movements control perspective, and front movements control depth-of-field.
Most view cameras have a tilting back, very useful for getting verticals (in the picture) vertical. Rear swing is also common, again useful for perspective.
Rear shift and rear rise/fall can be important (for example when shooting architecture or tabletop) but are not absolutely necessary for general use.
Remember that many, many great photographs (in all genres) have been made with view cameras that had limited movements!

Back movements control image shape and Scheimpflug.
Front movements controls Scheimpflug.

Lens focal length, aperture and focus point control depth of field.

[Jim Noel]

I disagree. I make the same type of images regularly. I could not do so w/o rear movements, and sometimes front. Yes, rear movements change perspective, but they are great for emphasizing areas of interest.
I suggest that, if possible, you rent a wooden field camera for a weekend and see what it will do. A 150mm-210mm lens will be very handy. I currently have, and use, 5 wooden field cameras of various sizes which I use constantly. My monorails spend 95% of the time stored away and are used only indoors.

[jrickards615]

Yes, the YouTube video mentioned Scheimpflug.

Maybe I misunderstood or misremembered, the t
YouTube guy said that front movements would work but he was concerned about the circle of light. There was a close tree on the right, another tree on the left a bit further away and then an interesting group of trees in the center, in the distance. Singing the back was his decision to capture the scene best.

OK, I'll continue to read but it seems like standard movements may suit me fine.

[Vaughn]

Back movement can be good to have if one wishes to use movements but do not have a extra image circle needed at the desired focusing distance. Tilting or swinging the front lens could swing the image circle away from part of the film, where using the back swing or tilt keeps the film within the image circle thrown by the lens.

My 5x7 Eastman View No.2 does not have front swing nor tilt, but does on the back. Not as convienent as having them on front and back, but it makes for a stable front standard and one learns to work with the tool. The image below would be considered an intimate landscape...a little less range than 3m to 10m perhaps. 180mm lens, I believe.

[Mark Sawyer]

Back movement can be good to have if one wishes to use movements but do not have a extra image circle needed at the desired focusing distance. Tilting or swinging the front lens could swing the image circle away from part of the film, where using the back swing or tilt keeps the film within the image circle thrown by the lens...

Hence a bit of rise/fall/shift to get the lens' optical axis back on center, (if your camera has those movements.)

[Drew Wiley]

Hmm, my back doesn't move as easily as it used to.... but if you're referring to my camera's back, I often make use of that when tilting the camera downward. If only front tilt is used to handle plane of focus distribution, it requires a far larger image circle than using or combining the rear tilt option, or requires a smaller f-stop, or counting on the less than ideal nether realm of the image circle rather than the center. Learning to use back tilt is therefore valuable. And of course, geometric perspective is affected differently, so that in itself becomes another correction tool, relative to front vs rear tilts or combination thereof. Swing is analogous. But Rise vs fall - either way, no difference. My 8x10 flatbed doesn't even have rear swing of height adjustment; but I like it that way for its overall simplicity and rigidity. My Sinar monorail does it all.

[Bernice Loui]

Horseman TooTed "focus plane rise" as one of their view camera movement features back in the day..
https://www.kenko-pi.co.jp/horseman/e/L45.html

On a Sinar Norma, simply move the front or rear frame as needed to re-frame the GG image and done. Similar for Sinar F or P.


As for lens image circle, typical 4x5 table top lens focal length would be ~ 210mm, a modern Plasmat would have a larger image circle than most cameras have the ability to move their front / rear standards at table top image ratios.

Don't forget the bellows factor compensation or under exposure assured.


Bernice

[neil poulsen]

For me, the only important rear movements are swing, rise and shift.

Swing is useful for optimizing horizontal Scheimpflug. This can be convenient for architecture, for example.

True shift happens on the rear, not the front. Though, front shift is often used and can be managed to simulate rear shift.

Rear rise is useful, for example, in case there's insufficient front fall. Rear rise can also be used to effect pointing the camera down. (See Drew's comment.)

As for tilt, front tilt is essential, and it's the only tilt that's needed. Keeping verticals parallel is a matter of keeping the back vertical, and without rear vertical tilt, it's thereby a matter of keeping the rail horizontal.

[Doremus Scudder]

I look at all these movements in a different way.

Two things really matter in image management: 1. The position of the back in relation to the subject and 2. The relative positions of lensboard to film plane.

The position of the back determines the projection, i.e., how the 3D subject will be rendered on the film plane including relative sizes of near and far objects and rendering of parallel lines.

The positions of the lens and film planes to each other dictate where the plane of sharp focus gets positioned relative to the film plane.

So, you can change the position of the plane of sharp focus with either front or back movements, but if you use the back movements, you also end up changing the perspective rendering of the image. (Sidebar: Please, don't take me to task for this usage of the word, "perspective." It's a perfectly good and alternate use of the word and I haven't found a better one to use in cases like this.)

If one wants parallel lines in a scene rendered parallel on the film, the film plane must be parallel to the plane those parallel lines lie in. That's true for either horizontal or vertical parallels (although we have a lot more tolerance for converging horizontal lines than vertical ones for some reason).

So, why would we want to use back tilt: One reason would be to bring the back parallel to vertical lines in the subject after the camera had been pointed downward. Another would be to make a foreground object appear larger in relation to other objects in the scene than it would with the camera in "zero" position, say a near boulder that you wanted to dominate the frame, etc. And, one could always use back tilt to get the plane of sharp focus better onto the film, realizing, of course, that the image rendering will be changed accordingly and taking that into account.

One reason back tilt gets used instead of front tilt is in cases where the required front tilt would move the image circle projected by the lens so much as to cause vignetting (a particular problem with lenses with limited coverage and front tilt/swing). Then, using a combination of front and rear tilt or rear tilt alone will prevent the vignetting (but change the image rendering, which may not be objectionable in many cases).

Another reason for back tilt: some cameras don't have front tilts or swings. If you need them, you can imitate them by pointing the camera and then tilting/swinging the back. All that really matters is 1. the position of the back in relation to the subject and 2. the relative positions of lensboard to film plane.

There are several "hacks" like this: pointing the camera up and then tilting the standards plumb again to get effective front rise, etc. All that really matters...

Best,

Doremus

[Heroique]

…if you use the back movements, you also end up changing the perspective rendering of the image.

(Sidebar: Please, don't take me to task for this usage of the word, "perspective." It's a perfectly good and alternate use of the word and I haven't found a better one to use in cases like this.)

Hey, wait a minute, I agree, but I’m still going to take you to task. :D Didn’t we clear this up long, long ago, in an eternal, never-ending thread about perspective? That is, “Geometric perspective” for certain back movements, “Viewpoint perspective” for certain front movements. A nice post Doremus. ;^)

[Alan Klein]

My Chamonix 45H-1 has asymmetrical tilt but only when you use the back standard. That makes tilting "easier" but it does add distortion but not noticeable on landscape pictures.

[Doremus Scudder]

Hey, wait a minute, I agree, but I’m still going to take you to task. :D Didn’t we clear this up long, long ago, in an eternal, never-ending thread about perspective? That is, “Geometric perspective” for certain back movements, “Viewpoint perspective” for certain front movements. A nice post Doremus. ;^)

Thanks!

As far as "perspective" is concerned: it's cleared up for me, but there are those who haven't seen that older thread and those who participated in the thread that never really accepted the consensus; just deflecting the "corrections" before they come.

Best,

Doremus

[Alan Klein]

So what's the best way to make the walls of buildings plumb (vertical)? I also have a asymmetric tilt using the back standard. How would that work with this issue?

[Bob Salomon]

So what's the best way to make the walls of buildings plumb (vertical)? I also have a asymmetric tilt using the back standard. How would that work with this issue?

You make the back plumb to the walls of the buiding

[Mark Sawyer]

You make the back plumb to the walls of the building

...and then use front rise to center the frame on the building. No other movements are necessary.

[BKP]

A lot of great advice here. Do not give yourself limitations, especially not in the beginning. The more movements available the better. Get a plastic torpedo level, cut off the ends with a hacksaw leaving the two glass bubble ends. In most landscape situations the back ground glass should be level and vertical. The cameras that lack movements on the front standard can get that from tripod head adjustments. The best camera is the Sinar (they are available for a lot less than they were) There is a Sinar handbook, worth looking into (probably twenty bucks). Even with 35mm landscapes the camera is level and the back is (film plane) is true. That way stopping down serves you best.
The most fun way to learn about your camera's movements is to get a chess set, set it up conventionally and not. Place a figure on the table and one on your sofa and see if you can get them both sharp. The polaroid back was a gem in its day. You can cut down b&w photo paper so it fits in your film holder, that keeps your learning curve's costs down. My first camera was a Calumet monorail, it gave me shots that I'm still proud of. I don't have a Sinar but have used them in studios that I worked in. The Sinar Handbook is very valuable regardless which camera you choose. Others have mentioned the fine work of Dr. Scheimflug. That is a point acheived when the film plane, the subject plane and the lens plane intersect. It is not only vertical but horizontal or even at another angle relative to the horizon. You will also need a good loupe and patience but its worth it. Have fun. bk

[Doremus Scudder]

So what's the best way to make the walls of buildings plumb (vertical)? I also have a asymmetric tilt using the back standard. How would that work with this issue?

Simple Alan, see my earlier post. The camera back has to be parallel with the plane of the face of the building if you want the verticals in the wall parallel. Period.

Any futzing for adjusting the plane of sharp focus needs to be done with the front standard then, so forget your asymmetric tilts once you get your camera back positioned correctly.

When doing architectural work where I want vertical lines to be rendered parallel, I always set up my camera in zero position, level it with the tripod head using the spirit level(s) on the camera and then fine tune camera position by aligning the verticals with the grid on the ground glass. Then I lock down and never touch back tilt. Sometimes I'll swing the back to get horizontal lines parallel (or make them converge more, whatever the image wants). Subsequent adjustments for positioning the plane of sharp focus get done on the front standard.

Best,

Doremus

[Doremus Scudder]

...and then use front rise to center the frame on the building. No other movements are necessary.

Maybe not necessary, but in a situation with a lot of foreground in front of the building one is photographing, a bit of front tilt can help with focus spread and enable the use of a more optimum aperture.

And, as I just mentioned above, if one uses back swing to adjust the rendering of horizontal lines in the subject, front swing is usually needed to compensate.

Best,

Doremus

[Mark Sawyer]

Sometimes I'll swing the back to get horizontal lines parallel (or make them converge more, whatever the image wants)...



And, as I just mentioned above, if one uses back swing to adjust the rendering of horizontal lines in the subject, front swing is usually needed to compensate...

Any back movements will cause keystoning, a big no-no in serious architectural documentation. Front and rear standards should always be plumb. Just use rise/fall to center the building as needed.


Maybe not necessary, but in a situation with a lot of foreground in front of the building one is photographing, a bit of front tilt can help with focus spread and enable the use of a more optimum aperture....


Tilting the front will tilt the lens' axis and the flat plane of focus that used to be coincident with the film plane.

[Alan Klein]

Simple Alan, see my earlier post. The camera back has to be parallel with the plane of the face of the building if you want the verticals in the wall parallel. Period.

Any futzing for adjusting the plane of sharp focus needs to be done with the front standard then, so forget your asymmetric tilts once you get your camera back positioned correctly.

When doing architectural work where I want vertical lines to be rendered parallel, I always set up my camera in zero position, level it with the tripod head using the spirit level(s) on the camera and then fine tune camera position by aligning the verticals with the grid on the ground glass. Then I lock down and never touch back tilt. Sometimes I'll swing the back to get horizontal lines parallel (or make them converge more, whatever the image wants). Subsequent adjustments for positioning the plane of sharp focus get done on the front standard.

Best,

Doremus

Thanks that makes sense. I usually don't have buildings in my landscape pictures but just had one the day before and couldn't figure out what to do. So I never got the lines plumb. I've got to practice tilting the front standard and getting away from asymmetrical tilts, period. The other problem with asymmetrical tilts is often the axis line isn't on the right distance subject.

[Vaughn]

Any back movements will cause keystoning, a big no-no in serious architectural documentation. Front and rear standards should always be plumb. Just use rise/fall to center the building as needed...

And can equally be a big yes!-yes! in making an image with a building in it. When viewed with our eyes/brain from a low angle, buildings do keystone -- it is how we see/experience them. Without the keystoning, buildings may seem to loom over the viewer. Just something to remember as one works with images.

[Bob Salomon]

Thanks that makes sense. “The other problem with asymmetrical tilts is often the axis line isn't on the right distance subject.

Not quite, it depends on the camera. Some, like Sinar, use two points for their assymetricc tilts. If they are not the lines you want you. Need to rise/fall to make them lie on those points.
Other, like LInhof. Have continuously variable assymetric tilt points.

[Mark Sawyer]

And can equally be a big yes!-yes! in making an image with a building in it. When viewed with our eyes/brain from a low angle, buildings do keystone -- it is how we see/experience them. Without the keystoning, buildings may seem to loom over the viewer. Just something to remember as one works with images.

True if you want keystone distortion for aesthetic reasons. But one can justify any method of doing anything for "aesthetic reasons", no matter how technically wrong it might be.

Keystoning is a distortion, and considered poor form for HABS, HAER, HALS, or other technical/documentary photography where guidelines dictate images be: "taken with appropriate means to correct perspective distortion." (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/07/21/03-18197/guidlines-for-architectural-and-engineering-documentation).

[Bernice Loui]

Trapezoidal building image rendition is not correct for accurate-proper architectural documentation. It does apply a choice of visual expression to buildings.

The 391 San Antonio Road, Mountain View, CA. Address of William Shockley's old lab.
https://www.eejournal.com/2018/08/17/391-south-san-antonio-road-the-house-that-william-shockley-built-and-destroyed/

5x7 Sinar, 8-1/4" f6.8 Dagor. Rear standard movements applied specifically to "distort" then front movement applied to compensate for focus. Shift / Rise adjusted as needed for composition needs. Initial camera position chosen to result in this perspective.
216619


The Fairchild Deli (long demo_ed now).
5x7 Sinar, 150mm f5.6 Schneider SSXL. Similar technique, different result. No B&W contrast altering color filters. just contrast (light intensity range) compressed via exposure time, development and...
216620


Lighthouse in Monterey, Building geometry held, no rear camera movements, tiny front movements to aid focus, more shift / rise / fall as needed to make the composition work with the camera position that was limited in many ways.
5x7 Sinar, 150mm f5.6 Schneider SSXL.
216621


On camera or similar add-on levels are less useful than is believed due to variations in buildings and lots more. A GOOD grid on the GG is FAR more useful, camera with precise, accurate, stable and easy to make fine adjustments makes images like this significantly easier (one of the roots of low tolerance for field folder and similar cameras).

Asymmetrical tilts/swings and all that are not a replacement for knowing how to properly and when to apply camera movements as needed. Asymmetrical tilts/swings ala Sinar were done to reduce time needed to establish studio table top and similar camera movements. They can be a time-saver if properly applied, BUT there is little if any advantage at all unless there is a proper of understanding of what camera movements do and impose their rules on the image being made. IMO, marketing feature that can apply in specific image making needs.


Bernice

[Vaughn]

True if you want keystone distortion for aesthetic reasons. But one can justify any method of doing anything for "aesthetic reasons", no matter how technically wrong it might be.

Keystoning is a distortion, and considered poor form for HABS, HAER, HALS, or other technical/documentary photography where guidelines dictate images be: "taken with appropriate means to correct perspective distortion." (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/07/21/03-18197/guidlines-for-architectural-and-engineering-documentation).

I am not talking about all the four-letter H-words as this is not an architectural photography thread, but about making images of/with (or without) buildings, too. :cool:

We see the world as a distortion, we look up at a building and it 'keystones' -- that fact can be taken into consideration when creating images, as it can affect how the viewer sees, reacts, and/or interprets the image.

There is zero technically wrong about keystoning or using other types of distortion in photography. They are techniques.

[Alan Klein]

Not quite, it depends on the camera. Some, like Sinar, use two points for their assymetricc tilts. If they are not the lines you want you. Need to rise/fall to make them lie on those points.
Other, like LInhof. Have continuously variable assymetric tilt points.

If the axis line doesn't fall on the far distant point I want to focus on, I first use rise/fall on the front to line up the axis line where I want to do the main distance focus. Then I shift the rise/fall on the front standard back to where I want to frame the shot and tilt the back for the near focus point. Is that right?

[Bob Salomon]

If the axis line doesn't fall on the far distant point I want to focus on, I first use rise/fall on the front to line up the axis line where I want to do the main distance focus. Then I shift the rise/fall on the front standard back to where I want to frame the shot and tilt the back for the near focus point. Is that right?

Yes, with a Sinar. No with a LInhof.

[Bernice Loui]

These axis lines (and imaginary planes) work IF the actual and accurate lines can be determined, precisely measured, accurately-precisely placed relative to all objects involved, camera placement, lens specifics and a very, very, very long list of real world realities that work in the highly controlled theoretical and math sphere. Add to this, items being imaged are typically 3D, then squashed flat into 2D onto the film. Point being, know how camera movements affect theGG image, essentially what camera movements and how much does what to the GG image. Learn and keep in mind camera movement effects on the GG image thus film image and apply them as needed. The complex math and camera marketing features claimed become of little if any value where the item to be imaged to the GG them film means little if the image maker does not fully understand how camera movements affect the GG image then to film image.

~Best way to learn, set up the camera and lens and contort-wrestle the camera as needed then watch what happens on the GG. Others can gain an intuitive sense for what camera movements do (after initial visual and related input), then figure out what and how to apply camera movements as needed to achieve the image on film as needed.

~What IS important, to have good control over camera movements, both front and rear standards MUST have identical range of movements (shift, rise-fall, swing, tilt, focus _ all combined, yaw free is of lesser importance unless time allowed to implement combined camera movements are absolutely essential). Couple this with lenses that have sufficient image circle permits a wide variety of image making capabilities.

As for distortion of buildings to be photographed, if geometry accuracy is needed, use a longer than normal focal length lens. Zero the camera, position the camera using the GG image, then tweak using the GG grid lines as needed. Levels are useful as a relative position indicator, not absolute position indicator.

5x7 Sinar, 19" APO artar from a distance, shift-rise-fall applied due to limits on camera position and need for geometrical accuracy.
216666


Bernice



If the axis line doesn't fall on the far distant point I want to focus on, I first use rise/fall on the front to line up the axis line where I want to do the main distance focus. Then I shift the rise/fall on the front standard back to where I want to frame the shot and tilt the back for the near focus point. Is that right?

[Mark Sawyer]

I am not talking about all the four-letter H-words as this is not an architectural photography thread, but about making images of/with (or without) buildings, too. :cool:

We see the world as a distortion, we look up at a building and it 'keystones' -- that fact can be taken into consideration when creating images, as it can affect how the viewer sees, reacts, and/or interprets the image.

There is zero technically wrong about keystoning or using other types of distortion in photography. They are techniques.

There is always distortion in photography. A man once showed Picasso a photograph of his wife to show what she looked like. Picasso replied, "Oh, is she that small and flat?"

Like most techniques for doing anything, there are technically right ways and technically wrong ways to use view camera movements. Keeping the front and rear standards plumb and using front rise and fall is the technically right way to photograph buildings without introducing distortion.

Anyone should of course use whatever technique gives them the result they want, but I'd stand by learning to do it technically right before intentionally doing it technically wrong, if only to understand and defend the decision.

[Doremus Scudder]

Any back movements will cause keystoning, a big no-no in serious architectural documentation. Front and rear standards should always be plumb. Just use rise/fall to center the building as needed.


Who made that a rule? That only applies if you want the plane of sharp focus to fall on the face of the building you are photographing.

Keeping the front and rear standards parallel and plumb works for many cases, but, often enough, I've found that a little front tilt allows a more optimal placement of the plane of sharp focus in situations where there is a lot of foreground, the building is rather distant, and there are foreground objects that you want to be in sharp focus. And yes, keystoning is undesirable in much architectural work; that's why the back has to be plumb and parallel with the verticals in the building to avoid it. Still that doesn't exclude using front tilt at all, if it helps.




Tilting the front will tilt the lens' axis and the flat plane of focus that used to be coincident with the film plane.

That's the whole point of using front tilt :) If tilting the plane of sharp focus results in less focus spread and allows me to use a more optimum aperture to get the depth of field I need, I tilt. If not, I don't. Simple as that.



Best,

Doremus

[Alan Klein]

Here's a digital capture of a shot I did today with my 4x5, My Chamonix has asymmetrical tilts allowed with the rear standard. Your comments appreciated.


Camera standards all started at default positions and leveled. Plumb, etc. My camera was too high so the first thing I did was to lower the front standard to get the wheel into the picture.

My camera has asymmetrical using the rear standard. Normally the read standard is just to tilt. In this case I did the following:

So first I focused on the axis line (green) where the X is in the white window. I then swung the rear standard so the right side was further away and the left side closer to help with the angle of the wall receding on the left. I played with the focus and angle a couple of times until it seemed it was all in focus. Then I tilted the front forward just a bit to help with the focus of the wheels where the x is on the blue line.

[Michael R]

Strictly speaking, this is not technically correct. It is a convention.


There is always distortion in photography. A man once showed Picasso a photograph of his wife to show what she looked like. Picasso replied, "Oh, is she that small and flat?"

Like most techniques for doing anything, there are technically right ways and technically wrong ways to use view camera movements. Keeping the front and rear standards plumb and using front rise and fall is the technically right way to photograph buildings without introducing distortion.

Anyone should of course use whatever technique gives them the result they want, but I'd stand by learning to do it technically right before intentionally doing it technically wrong, if only to understand and defend the decision.

[Doremus Scudder]

... Your comments appreciated.

Camera standards all started at default positions and leveled. Plumb, etc. My camera was too high so the first thing I did was to lower the front standard to get the wheel into the picture.

This is the correct thing to do if you want to keep parallel verticals in the scene parallel on the film. Pointing the camera down with the pan/tilt head on your tripod would result in keystoning, i.e., converging verticals; in this case converging toward the bottom of the image.


My camera has asymmetrical using the rear standard. ... In this case I did the following:

So first I focused on the axis line (green) where the X is in the white window. I then swung the rear standard so the right side was further away and the left side closer to help with the angle of the wall receding on the left. I played with the focus and angle a couple of times until it seemed it was all in focus. Then I tilted the front forward just a bit to help with the focus of the wheels where the x is on the blue line.

Here's where I'm not quite sure what you did. If you were using asymmetrical swings, your axis lines should be vertical; you've got horizontal axis lines in your illustration, so they don't quite jibe with your description...

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by swinging the back so that "the right side was further away and the left side closer." Closer to what is the question: Closer to you? Or closer to the scene?

If you were trying to get the plane of sharp focus aligned with the plane of the barn wall, then you would swing the back farther from parallel to the plane of the wall, i.e., in the opposite direction that you would swing it to make it closer to parallel (God, this is hard to describe clearly; maybe someone else can give me a better choice of words?)

Remember, if you want to align the plane of sharp focus with a subject plane, "the lens looks, the back 'backs away'."

I'm assuming that's what you did; brought the plane of sharp focus to align with the plane of the wall. This brings the wall into better focus, but causes horizontal parallel lines to converge (you're moving the back in relation to the subject, hence image perspective changes).

If, however, you swung the back the opposite direction, i.e., in the direction of more (or completely) parallel to the barn wall, you are ensuring that horizontal parallel lines will be rendered parallel (or more so) on the film. But, doing this moves the plane of sharp focus at an even more oblique angle to the wall of the barn, so if you want some to keep it all in sharp focus, you need to compensate with front swing; moving the plane of focus back in alignment with the barn wall. You'd do this by swinging the front standard in the opposite direction you swung the back.

Hope that all makes sense,

Doremus

[Alan Klein]

This is the correct thing to do if you want to keep parallel verticals in the scene parallel on the film. Pointing the camera down with the pan/tilt head on your tripod would result in keystoning, i.e., converging verticals; in this case converging toward the bottom of the image.



Here's where I'm not quite sure what you did. If you were using asymmetrical swings, your axis lines should be vertical; you've got horizontal axis lines in your illustration, so they don't quite jibe with your description...

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by swinging the back so that "the right side was further away and the left side closer." Closer to what is the question: Closer to you? Or closer to the scene?

If you were trying to get the plane of sharp focus aligned with the plane of the barn wall, then you would swing the back farther from parallel to the plane of the wall, i.e., in the opposite direction that you would swing it to make it closer to parallel (God, this is hard to describe clearly; maybe someone else can give me a better choice of words?)

Remember, if you want to align the plane of sharp focus with a subject plane, "the lens looks, the back 'backs away'."

I'm assuming that's what you did; brought the plane of sharp focus to align with the plane of the wall. This brings the wall into better focus, but causes horizontal parallel lines to converge (you're moving the back in relation to the subject, hence image perspective changes).

If, however, you swung the back the opposite direction, i.e., in the direction of more (or completely) parallel to the barn wall, you are ensuring that horizontal parallel lines will be rendered parallel (or more so) on the film. But, doing this moves the plane of sharp focus at an even more oblique angle to the wall of the barn, so if you want some to keep it all in sharp focus, you need to compensate with front swing; moving the plane of focus back in alignment with the barn wall. You'd do this by swinging the front standard in the opposite direction you swung the back.

Hope that all makes sense,

Doremus

The top green line is of course on the bottom of the GG and is the asymmetrical line representing the axis. My first focus was with that line where the X is in the white window. I then swung the back standard so the physical right side of it was moved closer to me and the left side further away from me. I was attempting to get the whole wall from left to right in focus but according to your comments I did the opposite. Is that true?

In any case, how would you have handled this disregarding the cameras asymmetrical features?

[Doremus Scudder]

The top green line is of course on the bottom of the GG and is the asymmetrical line representing the axis. My first focus was with that line where the X is in the white window. I then swung the back standard so the physical right side of it was moved closer to me and the left side further away from me. I was attempting to get the whole wall from left to right in focus but according to your comments I did the opposite. Is that true?

In any case, how would you have handled this disregarding the cameras asymmetrical features?

Alan,

It seems you're making a fundamental conceptual error here (from what I gather, at least).

Swings revolve around a vertical axis, not a horizontal one. The green line in your illustration is horizontal, and would be an axis for tilts, not for swings.

If your camera has asymmetrical swings as well as tilts, there should be axis lines on the ground glass or at least registration points somewhere on the camera.

To repeat: you can't swing around a horizontal axis.

On to the swings: It seems you did the correct thing to get the barn wall plane in sharp focus, i.e., swinging the back farther from parallel to the wall in order to use the Scheimpflug principle to position the plane of sharp focus onto the plane of the barn wall. (All this should be/have been obvious on the ground glass.)

Just to recap, though: To use the Scheimpflug principle to position the plane of sharp focus onto a plane at an oblique angle to the film plane, you can either a) swing or tilt the lens closer to parallel with the image plane, b) swing or tilt the back farther from parallel from the image plane, or c) use a combination of the two. Hence the mnemonic: "The lens looks; the back 'backs away'."

Swinging the back parallel to a wall when that wall is at an oblique angle to the film plane ensures that the parallel horizontal lines on the wall will be parallel in the image, but it goes in the opposite direction of a Scheimpflug adjustment. Therefore, you'd have to swing the lens stage parallel to the wall as well to ensure sharp focus on the entire plane of the wall. Note that this effectively ends up giving you shift.

To your last question: Without asymmetrical capabilities, you'd still use the same movements to get the proper relationship between lens plane and film plane. In this case, front or back swing (in the proper direction for Scheimpflug) to get the wall in focus. I'd swing the back if I wanted to emphasize the convergence; the front if I didn't (or, alternatively, I'd swing the back parallel to the wall to get it square, level and plumb and swing the lens parallel as well to preserve focus - I use all three of these variants regularly as well as combinations of them). The only difference is that without asymmetrical movements, I'd have to do a couple of iterations of re-focusing and re-positioning the movement. The only thing asymmetrical movements do is save you a little time if you know how to use them quickly and the image lines up easily with your axis lines. The basic movements stay the same.

Best,

Doremus

[Alan Klein]

Doremus. I'm still confused how you get the wall's lines plumb and parallel yet do the tilt for maximum DOF.

[Doremus Scudder]

Doremus. I'm still confused how you get the wall's lines plumb and parallel yet do the tilt for maximum DOF.

Alan,

Don't confuse tilt/swing for purposes of optimizing the position of the plane of sharp focus with positioning the back for rendering parallel vertical or horizontal lines in the scene parallel on the film.

To reiterate: the position of the back in relation to the parallel lines in the subject determines how they will be rendered on the film.

If the back is positioned plumb, then it should be parallel to the vertical axis of a building (assuming the building is plumb) and the vertical lines in the building will be rendered parallel on the film.

Keeping horizontals parallel is just the same as keeping verticals plumb and parallel, just 90° different: For horizontal parallels, the back needs to be parallel to the horizontal axis of the wall (or whatever) you want to be rendered "square" on the film.

It works the same both vertically and horizontally. That's really all there is to it.

Often, we position the back plumb so vertical lines are rendered parallel, but don't worry about the convergence of horizontal lines in a wall, etc. That's just fine. However, if you want parallel horizontal lines on a wall to be parallel on the film (for whatever reason), then the camera back has to be parallel to the horizontal axis of the wall.

Note here that using front tilt or swing after you lock down the camera back in your desired position does not affect the image rendering. It will move the plane of sharp focus around in the scene. This may or may not be desirable.

If you use back tilt or swing at any point, you'll affect the image rendering. Maybe you do this on purpose, e.g., swing the back to get more convergence of horizontal lines, etc. Just don't do it accidentally after you've got the back in the position you want it in relation to the subject both vertically and horizontally.

Some examples:

Imagine a tall building that we want the verticals to not keystone on. We set up the camera with the back plumb, i.e., parallel to the verticals axis of the building. Then we use front rise to frame the image. For many of these type of shots, we keep the lens standard in "zero" position too, i.e., parallel to the back and the façade vertically. So it's just a matter of setting up the camera plumb, framing with front rise and making the exposure.

But in scenes where there is a lot of foreground and an important foreground object that needs to be sharp, then tilting the front a bit (not the back; it's already where we want it: plumb) can sometimes position the plane of sharp focus more optimally, and keep us from having to stop down into diffraction degradation too far.

Let's say we have a horizontal brick wall, and we want all the vertical and horizontal lines to be parallel on the film. Then we set up with the camera back plumb (that takes care of the vertical axis) and also parallel horizontally to the wall. This latter requires that you pan the camera and watch the ground glass until you find the position where all horizontal lines are parallel (a gridded ground glass helps here). Then you lock down the back and don't touch it.

If we don't have our desired framing after you've moved the back into a position horizontally parallel with the wall, we can a) move the camera to get the framing we want, or, b) we can use shift, framing the image horizontally just like we did using front rise to frame the tall building in the first example.

Everything on the wall will be in focus as long as the film plane and lens plane are parallel to the wall both horizontally and vertically. However, what if we want to intentionally render the sides of the wall out of focus and have just a stripe of sharp focus in the middle? Then we'd use front swing to move the plane of sharp focus around to get the effect we want.


Final example:

Set up to make an image of a similar brick wall, but this time we can't position the camera directly in front of where we'd like it to be; we have to set up off to one side.

Okay, we set up with the back plumb (taking care of the verticals) and point the camera at the wall at an oblique angle. At this point, the parallel lines in the wall will converge slightly. So we have to make a decision regarding back position and the rendering of those horizontal parallel lines (forget focus for now). We have lots of choices: We could leave the image as it is, but maybe that's not what we want.

So, one thing we could do is emphasize the convergence. This would mean swinging the back away from parallel to the wall until we got the degree of convergence we wanted. Of course, then the entire wall is not going to be in the plane of sharp focus. So, we lock down the back and use front swing (in the opposite direction as we swung the back) to position the plane of sharp focus onto the wall (Scheimpflug principle here.) Done and make the shot. Notice that you can't use your asymmetrical back movements here to position the plane of sharp focus since the back is positioned to get the composition you want first and any further back movement would destroy that.

However, maybe we don't want more convergence in the wall; maybe we want those horizontals to be parallel on the film instead. What to do?
Well, we could simply pan the camera so that the back was parallel with the wall horizontally and then use shift to frame the image, as described above...

== OR ==

We could leave the camera pointed where it already is and simply swing the back parallel to the wall. Of course, then the entire wall is not going to be in the plane of sharp focus. So, we lock down the back and use front swing to position the plane of sharp focus. This time, we'll need to bring the lens plane parallel with the film plane, so the swing will be in the same direction as the back swing.

And, our final camera configuration will be, as far as the relation of lens standard and camera back, the same as if we'd used shift. This is how we get effective shift on field cameras that don't have shift movements: point the camera at the scene and then swing both the back and the lens parallel to the wall.

And remember, once we get the camera back positioned where we want it for image perspective, we can still move the plane of sharp focus around with front tilts and swings. So, if in any of the above scenarios, a bit of tilt or swing helps to position the plane of sharp focus more optimally, then we should use it.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

[Alan Klein]

Thanks
I have to spend some time experimenting with different scenes and movements.

[Bernice Loui]

YES!

Spend some reading time with this chapter lifted from the Linhof view camera book. Explains view camera movements and lots more:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164126-Importance-of-camera-movements-gt-Alan-amp-others-long-amp-Linhof


Bernice



Thanks
I have to spend some time experimenting with different scenes and movements.

[Alan Klein]

Here's a digital capture of a shot I did today with my 4x5, My Chamonix has asymmetrical tilts allowed with the rear standard. Your comments appreciated.


Camera standards all started at default positions and leveled. Plumb, etc. My camera was too high so the first thing I did was to lower the front standard to get the wheel into the picture.

My camera has asymmetrical using the rear standard. Normally the read standard is just to tilt. In this case I did the following:

So first I focused on the axis line (green) where the X is in the white window. I then swung the rear standard so the right side was further away and the left side closer to help with the angle of the wall receding on the left. I played with the focus and angle a couple of times until it seemed it was all in focus. Then I tilted the front forward just a bit to help with the focus of the wheels where the x is on the blue line.

Here's the actual Provia 100 4x5 taken.

[Alan Klein]

Here's an Ektachrome converted to BW.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51260831927_42efb6d047_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2m6Kar2)
Dey Farm Wheels (https://flic.kr/p/2m6Kar2) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr