How Too Much Tilt Can Tilt the Beginner's Brain

[Ulophot]

When starting out in LF, most start out trying to use far more camera movement than needed to accomplish our objective (no pun intended). Here's an example of how it could become confusing, which I happened to recall today from my own past experience. Perhaps it will help someone new to LF photography.

I was using a 210mm lens on a country scene. I was by a road on a low hillside. A barn with tall trees close by it stood perhaps 1,000 ft. or more away, on high ground about the height level at which I was standing. In between, the ground in front of me as I faced the barn sloped down to the level of a large pond, perhaps 20 feet below. The closest grass in my composition remained at about my level and lay perhaps 20 feet from the lens. I wanted everything in focus.

From under the dark cloth, I started by tilting the lens enough to have the center of the barn and the nearby grass simultaneously in focus. However, the pond was then way out of focus. But what astonished me, was that shifting the focus to the pond at this setting required moving the front standard backward, i.e., the pond was now the far focus and the distant barn the close focus. Huh?!

The key to the conundrum is to remember what happens as we tilt (or swing) either standard. Imagine two marks painted on the plane of focus, one at the top of your framing, the other at the bottom. For simplicity, let's assume that the lens will be tilted around its center. Starting at vertical with the camera levelled and movements zeroed, as we slowly tilt the lens forward, the plane-of-focus starts tilting (more than our lens board) from vertical increasingly toward horizontal, the imaginary top mark moving farther away from the camera and the bottom mark getting closer to the camera. "Far" focus will remain on the far side of the plane, which will be increasingly underneath the titling plane; "near" focus will remain on what was our side of the plane, and thus increasingly above the tilting plane.

The cause of the seemingly opposite focusing direction in the scene described, was the degree of tilt. By tilting so much that the grass and barn were simultaneously in focus, the plane of focus had been made nearly horizontal. Therefore, I was actually focusing on the distance from the camera to the grass in an almost vertical direction, just as if, had I used no movements, I would have had to aim the camera down toward the grass mot far from the front foot of the tripod. With the plane of focus in this orientation, therefore, in order to bring the pond into focus meant focusing farther away (thus bringing the lens closer to the film), because the pond surface surface, about 20 feet below my feet, now lay on the far side of the plane of focus, which had been place somewhere around 7 feet from the lens.

In my case, the picture I had hoped for was not really within the capabilities of the lens. The depth-of-field I wanted would have required an f/ stop of about 64, and even if I had had it marked on my lens, the diffraction would have surely taken the edge off the crisp Ansel Adams look I was imagining.

I hope this may be useful.

[Michael R]

220937

[Drew Wiley]

Well, that was a much easier task than expecting everything from below your toes to infinity to be in focus. How much tilt is enough? - whatever it takes to get the job done. What many beginners fail to realize is that you don't necessarily have to do it all using front tilt only. If the camera is aimed downward somewhat, returning the rear vertical will not only restore the verticals in the scene, but also do much of the heavy lifting with respect to near/far plane of focus. Then just make up the difference with the front standard. That way you don't need to use near as much of the hypothetical image circle, or quite as small an f-stop.

"Crisp Ansel Adams look" - ha! Ever seen many of his images enlarged more than 2 or 3 times?

[Greg]

The depth-of-field I wanted would have required an f/ stop of about 64, and even if I had had it marked on my lens, the diffraction would have surely taken the edge off the crisp Ansel Adams look I was imagining.

I hope this may be useful.

Over the years I have taken many images with my 210mm, 250mm, and 300mm lenses at f/64 that enlarged to excellent(and sharp) 16x20 prints. I recall reading that Ansel Adams had no qualms about closing down to and using f/64... he just didn't enlarge those negatives to 40x60" or larger.

[Drew Wiley]

He sure as hell did enlarge a number of those negs to 40X60's, or have them enlarged under his supervision at a more adequately equipped pro lab. F/64 was the name of the movement; and they often stopped down further than that! But until his later years, AA didn't have anywhere near the level of camera precision or lens quality we routinely expect today. "Fine-grained" films back then are what we would call buckshot today. "Fast" emulsions back then used a cable release connected to a Carbon 14 clock on the other end. So no, his big enlargements (really only 6X from 8x10 film) are really quite mushy unless one backs away quite a bit when viewing the print.

I never personally like to stop down 4X5 lenses more than f/32; with 8x10, f/64 is equivalent, though I prefer not to stop down more than f/45 if contemplating a 4X enlargement (8X10 to 30X40 inch). That's because viewers really do get nose-up to even my larger prints. If the detail is there, it pulls them in. Leave that "normal viewing distance" nonsense to outdoor advertising companies and the Marlboro Man, who looks perfectly sharp on a billboard thirty feet across from a normal viewing distance of a quarter mile.

[Ulophot]

"Crisp Ansel Adams look" - ha! Ever seen many of his images enlarged more than 2 or 3 times?

Yes, but you surely know what I'm talking about, even though you do know how to machine to within 3 quadrillionths of a millimeter. There are 8x10 contact prints, and 16x20 -- hardly a small print -- is, of course, only 2x for the big negs. And even those old, thick, slow film emulsions can have a breath-taking effect with certain images. And for someone like me, who knew little but 35mm for my first decade of photography and had seen few truly fine print originals...

[Michael R]

Depends on the picture. If one wants to give the impression of sharpness everywhere it is often preferable to accept a small loss of definition everywhere than to use a wider aperture. Tilts and swings are not useful in anywhere near as many situations as a newcomer is led to believe. They can also be detrimental.


He sure as hell did enlarge a number of those negs to 40X60's, or have them enlarged under his supervision at a more adequately equipped pro lab. F/64 was the name of the movement; and they often stopped down further than that! But until his later years, AA didn't have anywhere near the level of camera precision or lens quality we routinely expect today. "Fine-grained" films back then are what we would call buckshot today. "Fast" emulsions back then used a cable release connected to a Carbon 14 clock on the other end. So no, his big enlargements (really only 6X from 8x10 film) are really quite mushy unless one backs away quite a bit when viewing the print.

I never personally like to stop down 4X5 lenses more than f/32; with 8x10, f/64 is equivalent, though I prefer not to stop down more than f/45 if contemplating a 4X enlargement (8X10 to 30X40 inch). That's because viewers really do get nose-up to even my larger prints. If the detail is there, it pulls them in. Leave that "normal viewing distance" nonsense to outdoor advertising companies and the Marlboro Man, who looks perfectly sharp on a billboard thirty feet across from a normal viewing distance of a quarter mile.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, Michael's assessment wouldn't work in about 90% of the pictures I've taken in my life. View cameras have tilts and swings for a good reason. Otherwise, just buy a box camera for sheet film.

[Ulophot]

Uh-oh. What have I started this time?

[Michael R]

Don’t worry - me and Drew often end up arguing about this stuff but it’s light hearted jousting, and we sometimes agree.


Uh-oh. What have I started this time?

[Bernice Loui]

f64 aka "Group f64" is more Foto ideology _ methodology than real world lens performance.

Unless contact prints are made, which f90 can be acceptable in many ways, there is about zero reason to use f64 as a taking aperture.
Modern view camera lenses are typically optimized at f22, typically good at f11 to f32 then f45 as the smallest reasonable taking aperture.

These pages from the Linhof view camera book was scanned some time ago then posted as a camera movement guide for those new to this view camera stuff.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164126-Importance-of-camera-movements-gt-Alan-amp-others-long-amp-Linhof


Majority of the view camera image made almost always used some degree of camera movement, even if they are small. Reason for this is to force the taking aperture to be as large as possible while holding what is needed to be in perceived focus.... in sorta-focus. Know only what the lens is focused at will be in focus, all else is the perception of being "in focus". This is why properly applying camera movements are SO very important this view camera stuff. Simply stopping down should never be the cure all for the image goal of perceived to be in focus.

As for Ansel Adams images, stop by the Weston gallery in Carmel, CA to have a gander at some of their AA prints and others. Consider their work as examples of what has been and was done instead of an emulation goal.
https://www.westongallery.com/


Bernice












In my case, the picture I had hoped for was not really within the capabilities of the lens. The depth-of-field I wanted would have required an f/ stop of about 64, and even if I had had it marked on my lens, the diffraction would have surely taken the edge off the crisp Ansel Adams look I was imagining.

[Vaughn]

I use every movement my camera is capable of for every image...I just use most of them zeroed out most of the time.

Early on, I'd tie the 4x5 cameras in knots until in frustration I'd zero everything out, start again, and end up using a slight bit of tilt and/or swing.

[Bernice Loui]

Typical landscape image does not require vast or large view camera movements. Do begin with the camera movements zero_ed, then apply tiny amounts of camera movement as absolutely needed with the lens at full aperture. Check what is in "focus: with the lens stopped down to the taking aperture to check for taking image being ok.

Far too easy to over apply view camera movements causing vast grief.


Bernice

[Alan Klein]

He sure as hell did enlarge a number of those negs to 40X60's, or have them enlarged under his supervision at a more adequately equipped pro lab. F/64 was the name of the movement; and they often stopped down further than that! But until his later years, AA didn't have anywhere near the level of camera precision or lens quality we routinely expect today. "Fine-grained" films back then are what we would call buckshot today. "Fast" emulsions back then used a cable release connected to a Carbon 14 clock on the other end. So no, his big enlargements (really only 6X from 8x10 film) are really quite mushy unless one backs away quite a bit when viewing the print.

I never personally like to stop down 4X5 lenses more than f/32; with 8x10, f/64 is equivalent, though I prefer not to stop down more than f/45 if contemplating a 4X enlargement (8X10 to 30X40 inch). That's because viewers really do get nose-up to even my larger prints. If the detail is there, it pulls them in. Leave that "normal viewing distance" nonsense to outdoor advertising companies and the Marlboro Man, who looks perfectly sharp on a billboard thirty feet across from a normal viewing distance of a quarter mile.

What I do with medium format is to calculate what I calculated I need in DOF, then stop down an extra stop for good measure. Now that I'm also shooting LF, I'm following others' prescriptions basically using f22 unless I think I need more, then go to f/32 as you said.

[Alan Klein]

Typical landscape image does not require vast or large view camera movements. Do begin with the camera movements zero_ed, then apply tiny amounts of camera movement as absolutely needed with the lens at full aperture. Check what is in "focus: with the lens stopped down to the taking aperture to check for taking image being ok.

Far too easy to over apply view camera movements causing vast grief.


Bernice

Basically what I do. Also, my camera, a Chamonix 45H-2, has asymmetrical focusing using the back standard only which is helpful sometimes depending on what you need to focus on. It gets complicated if the focus points are not on the asymmetrical line. Then you shift the standard, focus, and return the standard back to the right framing.

[r.e.]

What I do with medium format is to calculate what I calculated I need in DOF, then stop down an extra stop for good measure. Now that I'm also shooting LF, I'm following others' prescriptions basically using f22 unless I think I need more, then go to f/32 as you said.

I think that most "serious amateurs" use aperture when shooting 35mm or medium format to control depth of field. There's no reason not to do the same thing with 4x5.

One of the big issues with video, especially with a micro four thirds camera like the Blackmagic Pocket 4K, is control over depth of field. It's also an issue with smartphones, where makers like Apple are specifically trying to address this problem.

[John Layton]

Jeesh...there are still times when this old (but non beginners) brain gets a bit twisted about with movements - at which point I just need to stop...and zero out both my camera and my old brain!

[Drew Wiley]

One problem with larger f-stops is the fact that most film holders simply don't hold the film all that flat. A smaller stop helps. The other fact necessitating smaller stops as well as often movements is that the world does not exist on a single flat plane. That might be possible on a studio table setup; but the real world often involves all kinds of image plane contradictions. No, shooting outdoors might not involve some of the extreme view camera contortions involved shooting inside a cramped bathroom or kitchen for an architectural magazine, for example. But there are plenty of reasons to have those movements outdoors too. And when it comes rise, no downtown skyscraper on earth brings the same degree of problem as being close up to some great peak face, with no room to back away. So I have no idea what a "typical landscape image" means; but it sure doesn't sound like anything I've been doing for the past fifty years. If I need extreme movements, I use em; if I need only minor movement, that's what I do. But one thing I don't ever do is go with some "one shoe size fits all" formula. .... Now let me get back to hanging a 30X40 inch print which wouldn't exist if I hadn't applied extreme tilt.

[Vaughn]

I had the same thought when I read 'typical landscape image'. Once I see the image I want, set the camera up, and get it on the GG, I'll have a pretty good idea of any focusing/DoF issues that I'll have, and with a quick meter-reading, what exposure time and aperture constraints I will have in creating the image. Some of these factors I will already know before setting up the camera, but the GG can bring confirmation...and surprises, too.

Especially with lenses of minimal coverage, I will also check the clipped corners of my GG to see if my use of movements will require a smaller aperture to insure coverage.



The rest of my time is spent under the darkcloth fooling with any movements I feel needing to be fooled with...and working with the image on the GG. Once I have focus/movements where I think/see they should be. I close down the aperture slowly and look for when all areas on the image come into focus at about the same f/stop (rinse and repeat)...then close down a couple more stops (to correct for eye-sight, film flatness, phase of moon, etc). My Fuji W 300mm has f90 for a reason.

[Alan Klein]

I think that most "serious amateurs" use aperture when shooting 35mm or medium format to control depth of field. There's no reason not to do the same thing with 4x5.

One of the big issues with video, especially with a micro four thirds camera like the Blackmagic Pocket 4K, is control over depth of field. It's also an issue with smartphones, where makers like Apple are specifically trying to address this problem.

With 4x5, which I'm relatively new to, I've been told to rely on tilt, where applicable. So I've just gotten used to leaving it at f22 unless I think I need more DOF. Then I switch to f32.

Regarding smartphones, there's less issue with DOF because they use wide-angle lenses and small sensors with a huge depth of field. The issue with them is to get less DOF for portraiture.

[tgtaylor]

I think that most "serious amateurs" use aperture when shooting 35mm or medium format to control depth of field...

For 35 and MF I use the method espoused by Galin Rowell which consists of finding the aperture on the lens where the foreground comes into sharp focus and the point where the background comes into sharp focus and then set the lens to the aperture that encompasses both points.

Thomas

[Alan Klein]

For 35 and MF I use the method espoused by Galin Rowell which consists of finding the aperture on the lens where the foreground comes into sharp focus and the point where the background comes into sharp focus and then set the lens to the aperture that encompasses both points.

Thomas

Can you explain how that works?

[ic-racer]

I find the aperture needed for a sharp print by determining the focal spread at the film plane in the camera. Other than say a mental or technical error on my part, this system provides excellent prints.
For example I know 1/4 turn of my camera's focus knob is F32, etc.

[tgtaylor]

Can you explain how that works?

The distance scale on your lens is correlated to the aperture scale. When you focus on the foreground the distance scale will indicate the distance, refocusing on the background will indicate a different distance. For a sharp focus throughout, simply choose the aperture that encompasses both points. This same procedure can be used with LF except that you use the scale on the cameras bed as the distance scale. Much easier and quicker, though, to use movements.

Thomas

[Ulophot]

Much easier and quicker, though, to use movements.

Thomas

When they can make a difference, of course.

[Vaughn]

For 35 and MF I use the method espoused by Galin Rowell which consists of finding the aperture on the lens where the foreground comes into sharp focus and the point where the background comes into sharp focus and then set the lens to the aperture that encompasses both points.

Thomas

It has risen from the dead!!!

I do the same with the Rolleicord -- I learned camera use with a Rollei and figured out the DoF info on the focusing dial pretty quick (once I learned there was such a thing as DoF). I used a tripod a lot, and after working with the GG of the Rollei (everything backwards) I found moving to 4x5 for me to be a natural smooth progression.