Does extending the center column accomplish the same thing as front rise?

[Schuster_Shots]

I've been feverishly shopping for a new lens and thinking a lot about how much rise I can squeeze out of the image circle on certain lenses. Because of this, I've come to desire the lens with the biggest image circle.

But now I'm wondering: if the bigger image circle only gets me 9mm of extra rise and costs me $200 more, can I get the cheaper lens and make up for the 9mm with 9mm of center column extension? In my mind there's no difference...but I'm not an optical engineer. I just like taking pictures.

The two lenses in question are the Fujinon CM-W 135mm f/5.6 (214mm image circle) and the Rodenstock Sironar-N 135mm f/5.6 (200mm image circle)

Any help would be appreciated!

[Vaughn]

No -- a center column does not change the relationship between the lens and the film...just lifts both up in the air equally. "Rise" functions by changing the vertical relationship between the two (film/lens)...one higher/lower than the other.

Will you need a lot of rise? This depends much on your subject matter.

You can increase the functional amount of rise of most view camera by tilting the camera up and making both standards vertical...but one's lens has to still cover.

[Schuster_Shots]

Hmm...

I understand why convergence is corrected with rise but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why it's different then raising the camera.

I just shoot landscapes but I find shift/rise/fall great for fine tuning the composition when I don't place my tripod perfectly.

[Bernice Loui]

Raise the center column reduces the stability of the tripod/tripod head supporting the camera. While easy to raise the center column it is a trade off at best.

Raising the center column does not produce the same degree of change in the image as rise/fall_shift. This is most apparent and common in architectural photography of tall structures. Study this previously posted examples from the Linhof book:

Post# 3
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164126-Importance-of-camera-movements-gt-Alan-amp-others-long-amp-Linhof&highlight=linhof

Best way to experience this, practice-experiment rise/fall_shift -vs- tripod center column lift with your current lens and camera. Know rise/fall_shift_center column lift often does not always make up for proper camera position. Camera position must be where it needs to be before camera movements should be applied.

As for why, what are the image goals?

If lots of rise/fall_shift is needed, the lens MUST be able to support this. Instead of the common f5.6 Plasmat (Fujinon CM, CMW and ... Rodenstock Sironar_, Schneider Symmar_, Nikkor _) apply a wide angle lens like the Fujinon 125mm f8 NSW or SW or Schneider 120mm f8 Super Angulon, Nikkor 120mm f8 SW, Rodenstock 115mm f6.8 Grandagon.. All will likely exceed the movement capability of a light weight field folder 4x5. There might be an issue with fitment due to the physical size of these wide angle lenses.


Bernice



Hmm...

I understand why convergence is corrected with rise but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why it's different then raising the camera.

I just shoot landscapes but I find shift/rise/fall great for fine tuning the composition when I don't place my tripod perfectly.

[Jody_S]

Hmm...

I understand why convergence is corrected with rise but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why it's different then raising the camera.

I just shoot landscapes but I find shift/rise/fall great for fine tuning the composition when I don't place my tripod perfectly.

Raising the camera does correct perspective in the same way that using rise can, but 1) it changes the angle of view (so you'll lose foreground in a landscape, for instance), and 2) to get the same effect you'll need to raise the camera to the height of the center of the subject. So if you're trying to correct the perspective of a shot of a 24,000 ft mountain, you'll need to raise your camera by approx. 12,000 ft. I am not aware of any tripods with a 12,000ft center column, and if they existed, they would almost certainly cost more than a lens with an extra few mm of image circle.

[Bob Salomon]

Raise the center column reduces the stability of the tripod/tripod head supporting the camera. While easy to raise the center column it is a trade off at best.

Raising the center column does not produce the same degree of change in the image as rise/fall_shift. This is most apparent and common in architectural photography of tall structures. Study this previously posted examples from the Linhof book:

Post# 3
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164126-Importance-of-camera-movements-gt-Alan-amp-others-long-amp-Linhof&highlight=linhof

Best way to experience this, practice-experiment rise/fall_shift -vs- tripod center column lift with your current lens and camera. Know rise/fall_shift_center column lift often does not always make up for proper camera position. Camera position must be where it needs to be before camera movements should be applied.

As for why, what are the image goals?

If lots of rise/fall_shift is needed, the lens MUST be able to support this. Instead of the common f5.6 Plasmat (Fujinon CM, CMW and ... Rodenstock Sironar_, Schneider Symmar_, Nikkor _) apply a wide angle lens like the Fujinon 125mm f8 NSW or SW or Schneider 120mm f8 Super Angulon, Nikkor 120mm f8 SW, Rodenstock 115mm f6.8 Grandagon.. All will likely exceed the movement capability of a light weight field folder 4x5. There might be an issue with fitment due to the physical size of these wide angle lenses.


Bernice

And fall off with those wide angle lenses. Especially when displaced.

[ic-racer]

Of course it will work, but you will need a very long center column. Depending on your lens focal length and the distance to the subject, one millimeter of front rise might take a meter of center column rise for the same framing (though the perspective will be changed slightly).

[r.e.]

As I understand it, the perspective problem is the result of tilting the camera up. If that's correct, it follows that if the camera is level there's no perspective problem. Depending on what one is photographing, raising the height of the camera may indeed make it unnecessary to tilt the camera up. In some cases, it may be sufficient to raise the tripod height, leaving aside a centre column.

The one thing that I'd add is that tilting a camera up or down when using a wide angle lens is just asking for perspective problems. This can be demonstrated by using a wide angle lens to photograph a person and seeing what happens when the camera is level versus when it is tilted.

[Jim Jones]

Large format images often have high enough image quality to permit tilting the camera to record the entire desired subject, scanning the image, and restoring correct perspective in Photoshop or another digital editor. When planning to do this, also take one shot with the camera level and no tilts applied. This gives a partial image in the correct perspective as a guide to correct aspect ratio in the Photoshopped image. Some enlargers, such as my ancient deJur, permit perspective correction in the darkroom.

[Jody_S]

Some enlargers, such as my ancient deJur, permit perspective correction in the darkroom.

You can do this with any enlarger AFAIK by tilting the easel. You can also use whatever is at hand and curve the paper, for example to correct perspective with an ultra wide angle looking head on at a subject. Easier to do with smaller formats, as the standard 50mm enlarging lens has enough DoF at f16 or f22.

[Alan Klein]

That's a great question and answers. Curious. Is there a chart or formula somewhere that shows just how much the change is when you use rise or fall?

[Alan Klein]

As an aside, my camera, a Chamonix 45H-2, has rise and fall on the front standard. But the default position for the rear standard is down as far as it can go. So there is only rise on the rear standard. When would you use rise on the rear rather than the front?

[Vaughn]

As I understand it, the perspective problem is the result of tilting the camera up. ...

Might be better to think of it as related to the plane of the film, rather than the whole camera. If the camera is pointed up, but the back is vertical, it is the same as having the camera level and the back standard vertical (convergence-wise). As I mentioned above, if one has a camera without front or rear rise/fall, but both tilt, then one can create the same result of front rise by tilting the camera up and making both standards vertical.

Alan -- front rise/fall (and shift) just moves the image circle around. Rear rise/fall moves the film around (hopefully) within the image circle. The size of a particular lens' image circle depends on its design, focal length, focusing distance, etc. With landscapes, most of the time it will not matter which standard one uses for rise/fall. With close-ups, the lens-to-subject relationship is much more critical and back movements might be better to use for slight adjustments.

[r.e.]

Might be better to think of it as related to the plane of the film, rather than the whole camera. If the camera is pointed up, but the back is vertical, it is the same as having the camera level and the back still vertical (convergence-wise). As I mentioned above, if one has a camera without front or rear rise/fall, but both tilt, then one can create the same result of front rise by tilting the camera up and making both standards vertical.

I posted in part due to the content of your earlier post, which was clear as mud. I think that it's "better" to talk about this, at least initially, in a straightforward way that doesn't involve turning the camera into a pretzel.

[Vaughn]

Mud, no. But perhaps chicken soup, though!:cool:

[neil poulsen]

This is a perceptive question. Let's assume that you have a very long center-column that extends into a hole in the ground when not raised.

Raising the center-column sufficiently high does indeed mean that you won't need as much front rise on the camera lens to keep verticals parallel. But, the two approaches of keeping verticals parallel are different. (Raising the center-column, versus raising the lens.)

By raising the center-column, one isn't just keeping the verticals parallel, one is changing the perspective (position) of the camera, and this will have a fundamental effect on the composition of the image. By analogy, Ansel Adams had a huge center column on his tripod. He had a platform on the top of his station-wagon so that he could raise all three, his person, his tripod, and his camera, to a level that he felt would give, when needed, a better composition. Likely, when using his platform, he wouldn't need as much rise on the camera. But the principle reason was to obtain a better image.

For this same purpose, I have an old Giant, five section Gitzo tripod that extends up ten feet or more to raise camera perspective when needed to improve a composition. Architectural compositions can often benefit by this change in perspective. And sometimes there's a mundane reason for raising camera perspective . . . there are bushes in the way of the image if one doesn't.

Back to the lens, if you don't mind a single (versus multi-) coated lens, there's a Fuji 135mm lens with inside lettering that might give you additional image circle. But frankly, I don't mess with 135mm lenses. I have a Schneider 121mm Super-Angulon lens that's a little wider, but that also has a huge image circle. It's a little bigger and heavier as a lens, but I sure don't let that get in the way of improving the composition of an image. Another possibility is a Fuji 125mm SW, that's a little closer to a 135mm focal length.

And as someone previously pointed out, raising a center-column too high can lead to a less stable camera-tripod system which can potentially increase vibrations, and thereby decrease the quality of the photograph. Much better to have a taller tripod or a platform on top of a vehicle.

[Vaughn]

Another thing to consider is whether 'proper' perspective is something to always aim for. I make images, I do not make copies of landscapes. Trees do not always grow straight, so sometimes I tilt the rear standard to straighten them up (or tilt the whole camera) -- or do the opposite and really tilt the trees inwards, depending on the needs of the image I am making. But then I grew up photographically under the redwoods -- The Land Without Horizons.

It is always good practice to begin by setting up one's pod and camera as level as possible...but then go nuts. Dare to point the whole camera up or down! If there is no noticeable perspective problems, tilting the camera instead of using front rise/fall will help keep you well within the image circle. What is great is that it is all on the GG.

I do not remember if that oak was straight up or not...but I made sure it was for the image! ("Two Minutes In the Life of an Photographer", Yosemite Valley, 8x10 carbon print)

[Doremus Scudder]

We're over-complicating this I think.

When you use front rise to keep vertical lines parallel, you move the image. The image is much smaller on the film than in real life. If you think in scale, i.e., the reduced magnification scale of the image, then when you shift the lens 9mm or so, you're moving the image by a lot more. With a 135mm lens and a building and a rather large distance between building and camera, you're moving the image by many (scale) feet.

When you raise the center column of a tripod, you are working in real-life 1:1 scale, and the foot or so you get with the center column is only a foot or so in relation to the building.

Yes, raising the camera position can help with correcting verticals. Even with a camera without movements, there's a position for the camera that keeps all the parallel lines parallel and gets the whole building in the image. If we want the top and the bottom of the building to be right at the top and bottom edges of the film, then this position is of necessity opposite the center of the building.

But, we could keep the camera position low and still get the whole building in the picture with the verticals parallel just by moving farther from the building until the top of the building was in the image with the camera set up plumb and level. Of course, there would be a lot of foreground in that image, but, one could always crop that out...

With cameras with movements and lenses with large image circles, we're able to use a camera position that is lower, but we're "wasting" image circle, i.e., the film just takes up a small portion of the image circle. So we can, in effect, "crop out" the bottom part with lots of foreground that we don't want, filling the film with just the building. That is, if we have enough image circle. If not, we can always back up a bit and crop.

@OP,
If you're looking for a 135mm lens with the largest image circle, look for the 135mm Wide-Field Ektar. It has substantially more image circle than the more-common Plasmats. I sure love mine; it lives in my architectural kit for just this reason.

Here's a photo of my Wista SW and the 135mm WF Ektar in action. Notice that I've even pointed the camera up and tilted back parallel to get more effective rise and that I am using a bit of shift and some front swing as well (to compensate for a less-than-ideal camera position).

Best,

Doremus

[Vaughn]

...
Here's a photo of my Wista SW and the 135mm WF Ektar in action. Notice that I've even pointed the camera up and tilted back parallel to get more effective rise and that I am using a bit of shift and some front swing as well (to compensate for a less-than-ideal camera position)...Doremus

Worth a thousand words!

[Rod Klukas]

Remember what is going on here. The lens reduces the size of the object you are photographing to get it onto a small piece of film or Sensor. So with that in mind a small movement does change things much more than physically moving the camera up in the real world, as that is dealing with reality, and rise deals with the reduced, projected representation of the object.

[grat]

Doremus has the best explanation so far.

Personally, I view the optical system as two cones, meeting at a point in the middle of the lens/shutter unit, and extending out in both directions from that point at the angle of view of the lens. The "rear" cone projects the image circle onto the film plane, at a very reduced size. This also means that the cone between the lens and the subject (front) is much, much larger, than the cone between the lens and the film plane (rear).

If the lens were exactly halfway between the subject and the film plane, then moving the lens would have the same result as raising the camera's position.

Since the lens is much closer to the film plane as a rule (when not doing closeup work) a small shift of the lens position will produce a large shift in the image projected onto the film plane.

Similarly, it doesn't require much tilt to produce a substantial shift in the plane of sharp focus.