Which first Rear Movement and Asymmetrical Tilt Chamonix 45F2

[McAir]

I just acquired a 45F2 with asymmetrical tilt. My question...If I use rear tilt to alter foreground perspective, should I do this before applying focus? And d0 I focus foreground or background first?

[Tin Can]

I assume you are total beginner, correct me if wrong

Get a book

First learn how to shoot without movements except focus

[rfesk]

Get a book, a magnifier of some sort and practice.

[Mark Sampson]

You might look up the instructions for Sinar cameras. Although the details of operation will be different, the principles will be the same.
I used a Sinar F2 on the job for many years, but can't recall ever using asymmetrical movements (if indeed that model has them). It's been well over a decade now!

[MartyNL]

Hi, I think you're just checking for confirmation.

As you know, large format camera control is an iterative process and I would always check focus after any camera movements.

And generally, I focus background first then adjust for foreground but I don't believe it makes any difference, if it's done the other way around.

[Bernice Loui]

Asymmetrical Tilt or Swing.. idea/concept is to place the first point of focus as essentially fixed, this allows the second point/area to be adjusted without the first point of focus shifting too much. Goal of Asymmetrical Tilt or Swing is to ease or reduce the camera movement iterations to achieve where the actual plane of focus happens a bit easier over cameras without this feature.

There is often still the need to shift/rise/fall the ground glass image after swing/tilt movements are applied due to image position shift. There is no "free lunch"..

That said, have been a Sinar P user for decades and many other non Asymmetrical Tilt or Swing view cameras, it can save time and make applying these camera movements a easier and in some ways simpler .. but it still comes down to the skill and ability of the image maker to apply and implement these features to achieve their image goals.


Bernice

[Oren Grad]

Can anyone who actually uses asymmetrical tilt address the OP's specific question? What is your step-by-step approach to tackling the scenario posed?

[Alan Klein]

I just acquired a 45F2 with asymmetrical tilt. My question...If I use rear tilt to alter foreground perspective, should I do this before applying focus? And d0 I focus foreground or background first?

Focus on the background first along the asymmetrical line marking for distance. Then apply asymmetrical tilt to the back standard until the foreground comes into best focus along the foreground asymmetrical line. You shouldn't have to refocus the lens.

The one question someone else has to answer to be sure, is if you raise or lower the front standard to place the distance point on the line and focus the lens when you move it back to the original height position, do you have to refocus?

[Alan Klein]

Can anyone who actually uses asymmetrical tilt address the OP's specific question? What is your step-by-step approach to tackling the scenario posed?

See my last post. I have a Chamonix 45H-1 that has rear asymmetrical tilt.
"Focus on the background first along the asymmetrical line marking for distance. Then apply asymmetrical tilt to the back standard until the foreground comes into best focus along the foreground asymmetrical line. You shouldn't have to refocus the lens."

[sharktooth]

I just acquired a 45F2 with asymmetrical tilt. My question...If I use rear tilt to alter foreground perspective, should I do this before applying focus? And d0 I focus foreground or background first?

Hmmmm, that's an interesting question.

You need to tilt the back to change perspective, but you also need to tilt the back to make use of the asymmetrical tilt focusing feature. I don't see how these two functions can be combined without conflicting. In other words, there's no advantage to using the asymmetrical tilt for focusing when you also need to tilt the back for perspective correction. I would tilt the back first to achieve the desired perspective, then use the front standard tilt to achieve desired focus in the conventional manner.

[sharktooth]

Maybe I was a little too hasty in my last reply. If the Chamonix rear standard has precise tilt angle markings, you could do a calculation to transfer the desired focus angle change to the front standard, but I don't see any such markings on the Chamonix pictures I've looked at.

You could combine the perspective and asymmetrical focus on a Sinar P series, for example, by setting up the perspective first and recording the tilt angle. Next, you would do the focus correction using the asymmetrical rear tilt, and record the angular "difference" between the back angle at the perspective position, and at the focus position. This "difference" angle would be transferred to the front standard tilt, and the rear tilt would be moved back to the perspective correction angle. If you now do a general focus, everything should come into focus as desired, and your perspective should also be fine.

[drew.saunders]

Can anyone who actually uses asymmetrical tilt address the OP's specific question? What is your step-by-step approach to tackling the scenario posed?

I don't know if Chamonix has a manual, but Ebony made one for asymmetrical rear movements. Here's an archived copy of it: https://archive.org/details/central-manuals-camera_ebony_U_asymmetrical.movements.pdf/mode/2up

I have an Ebony 45SU, and here's how I do rear tilt. I almost never use rear swing.

With the Ebony, there's a dotted line on the bottom of the ground glass that corresponds to the "center" of the asymmetric tilt (same with the right side for swing). If the Chamonix doesn't have this, you may want to add it, but it should. I focus what I want on that dotted line, then tilt the rear to get as much as I can of the subject into focus, then stop down as needed. In practice, I focus on the line, tilt the wrong way, notice that everything just got much worse, then tilt the right way. It's pretty easy and quick and you should be able to get the hang of it with some practice.

[Chester McCheeserton]

I found this old zone 6 page to be helpful....although I think the suggestions would apply to both base and axis tilts

232894

I've used tilt for increasing depth of field or chancing focus in less than 1% of my pictures....I use for correcting the vertical perspective in probably 95% of pictures containing a building...

[McAir]

Thank you. The more recent responses were of much more value than the earlier ones.

[Mark Sawyer]

As the Chamonix 45F2 has its tilts hinged at the bottom, focus there first as that area of the focal plane will remain relatively unchanged. Then tilt for the foreground focus. As previously mentioned, expect to readjust several times for fine focus.

[Alan Klein]

As the Chamonix 45F2 has its tilts hinged at the bottom, focus there first as that area of the focal plane will remain relatively unchanged. Then tilt for the foreground focus. As previously mentioned, expect to readjust several times for fine focus.

Mark, That's not correct. No secondary focusing has to be done with asymmetrical tilts. That's the whole point of them.

The line on the ground glass is in the same position as the hinge on the rear standard. So any rear tilting will not change the focus for the distance focusing which is done first. After focusing the distance along the marking on the ground glass, you tilt the rear standard back until the foreground is in focus.

The far focus remains unchanged because it's focused at the same position as the rear standard hinge which does not move.

[McAir]

Hmmmm, that's an interesting question.

You need to tilt the back to change perspective, but you also need to tilt the back to make use of the asymmetrical tilt focusing feature. I don't see how these two functions can be combined without conflicting. In other words, there's no advantage to using the asymmetrical tilt for focusing when you also need to tilt the back for perspective correction. I would tilt the back first to achieve the desired perspective, then use the front standard tilt to achieve desired focus in the conventional manner.

Thank you. That is one of the questions i had. Your comment makes sense.

[McAir]

Thanks for this

[Mark Sawyer]

Mark, That's not correct. No secondary focusing has to be done with asymmetrical tilts.

Respectfully, experience says secondary focusing always has to be done, regardless of the tilt system.

[Alan Klein]

Respectfully, experience says secondary focusing always has to be done, regardless of the tilt system.

Respectfully, I checked the focus after doing the tilt and it didn't move. No refocusing was necessary on my Chamonix 45H-1. Which asymmetrical camera did you try that required refocusing?

[Alan Klein]

Thank you. That is one of the questions i had. Your comment makes sense.

He reversed his comment in his next post and said his statement was incorrect.

[sharktooth]

He reversed his comment in his next post and said his statement was incorrect.

That's really not quite true either. My original comments still apply to the Chamonix, since there's no way to easily transfer angle changes to the front standard. The Sinar P, and other cameras that have the tilt angle scales, could be used to combine rear tilt perspective correction with asymmetrical rear tilt focus. Even with a Sinar P, it would still be a complicated process that I would hardly consider to be any advantage. It's one of those cases where in theory it could be done.

Since the Chamonix doesn't have any tilt angle scales, it's asymmetrical rear tilt is only like the Sinar in a kind of half-assed way. I'm not saying that it isn't useful, but it's definitely not giving you the same capability as a Sinar (or similar). With the Chamonix, the rear asymmetrical tilt is only useful for focusing convenience, and it sacrifices perspective control. If the rear tilt is small, the perspective change will probably be unnoticeable, so it's a quick and easy way to work. On the other hand, if perspective is important, then tilting the back for focus could screw things up royally. It's not a good or bad thing, it's just something to be aware of, and use with wisdom.

[McAir]

That's really not quite true either. My original comments still apply to the Chamonix, since there's no way to easily transfer angle changes to the front standard. The Sinar P, and other cameras that have the tilt angle scales, could be used to combine rear tilt perspective correction with asymmetrical rear tilt focus. Even with a Sinar P, it would still be a complicated process that I would hardly consider to be any advantage. It's one of those cases where in theory it could be done.

Since the Chamonix doesn't have any tilt angle scales, it's asymmetrical rear tilt is only like the Sinar in a kind of half-assed way. I'm not saying that it isn't useful, but it's definitely not giving you the same capability as a Sinar (or similar). With the Chamonix, the rear asymmetrical tilt is only useful for focusing convenience, and it sacrifices perspective control. If the rear tilt is small, the perspective change will probably be unnoticeable, so it's a quick and easy way to work. On the other hand, if perspective is important, then tilting the back for focus could screw things up royally. It's not a good or bad thing, it's just something to be aware of, and use with wisdom.

This makes sense to me. So, I I am really wanting to increase emphasis on a foreground/or background element using rear tilt, then I must use the traditional iterative focusing methodology vs the asymmetrical. If I am understanding correctly.

[Bernice Loui]

Asymmetrical Tilt on a field folder is questionable value and usefulness due to the way a field camera is often used (typically landscapes which is not camera movement demanding) and the lack of proper angle and linear measure scales (likely due to visual aesthetic expectation of what and how a field folder must "look" like). If these field folders were serious about allowing the user to fully and easily apply camera movements, they would apply ALL the proper and appropriate angle and linear scales on them..

That said, example of using the rear standard to measure tilt angle then transfer that information to the front standard is a feature on the Sinar F.. IMO, front tilt or swing is more often used than rear tilt or swing. Design and application of Asymmetrical tilt on the front standard on a field folder would not be simple or easy due to the nature of how a field folder typically works.

The Sinar F example of using the rear standard to measure the amount of tilt or swing needed, then transferred to the front standard which is possible due to angle scales on both front and rear standard. There is also the added feature of camera movement angles -vs- DOF per an added scale on the camera's rear standard. In this specific example, this system works Good.

232927

232926

DOF
232928

DOF and transfer:
232929

Link to Sinar F manual:
https://cameramanuals.org/prof_pdf/sinar_f-02.pdf


This previously posted info on camera movements from the Linhof book remains a useful reference on camera movements:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164126-Importance-of-camera-movements-gt-Alan-amp-others-long-amp-Linhof


Bernice








That's really not quite true either. My original comments still apply to the Chamonix, since there's no way to easily transfer angle changes to the front standard. The Sinar P, and other cameras that have the tilt angle scales, could be used to combine rear tilt perspective correction with asymmetrical rear tilt focus. Even with a Sinar P, it would still be a complicated process that I would hardly consider to be any advantage. It's one of those cases where in theory it could be done.

Since the Chamonix doesn't have any tilt angle scales, it's asymmetrical rear tilt is only like the Sinar in a kind of half-assed way. I'm not saying that it isn't useful, but it's definitely not giving you the same capability as a Sinar (or similar). With the Chamonix, the rear asymmetrical tilt is only useful for focusing convenience, and it sacrifices perspective control. If the rear tilt is small, the perspective change will probably be unnoticeable, so it's a quick and easy way to work. On the other hand, if perspective is important, then tilting the back for focus could screw things up royally. It's not a good or bad thing, it's just something to be aware of, and use with wisdom.

[Bernice Loui]

Easier on the Sinar P/P2, essentially turn the knobs on the geared camera movement controls:
232930

DOF scale:
232931

Link to Sinar P manual:
https://sinar.swiss/assets/Uploads/Sinar-p2c2fcf1-Instruction-Manual-EN.PDF


Bernice

[Doremus Scudder]

I think we're overcomplicating things for the OP. Let me take a stab at oversimplification :)

Asymmetrical tilts and swings are simply axis tilts/swings with the axes displaced off-center. Using them is very similar to using axis movements.

In the specific case of back asymmetrical tilts, one chooses a distant object that lies in the desired plane of sharp focus and focuses that on the corresponding axis line on the ground glass (bottom of gg in this case). The back is then tilted around that axis until a foreground object that lies in the desired plane of focus is in sharp focus on the other axis (or reference) line.

*** complication ahead! ***
In theory, that should be all it takes to apply the movement. If the camera is designed well, the asymmetrical tilt/swing lines on the ground glass will be exactly where the actual axes are for the movements, so no refocusing should be needed once the initial focusing has been done. That said, camera engineering is rarely that precise and fine adjustments of focus are often needed.

Once you have applied the movement to your satisfaction, then focusing comes into play. There are a number of different methods of focusing the view camera. If you've placed your plane of sharp focus with the movements on points that you want to focus on, then you're basically already done with focusing. The trick now is to find an f-stop that gives you the depth of field you desire. That's another can of worms, so I'll leave that for another thread.

If you want to apply other movements, that can be done before or after applying the asymmetrical movements depending on which movements you use. If you apply front rise/fall or lateral shift on the front standard, then no refocusing will be needed; you can do these movements before or after applying your asymmetrical rear tilt or swing. However, if you want apply rear swings in addition to asymmetrical tilts, or or raise/lower the back, then you should apply those movements before the tilts, since you'll displace the ground glass and change the focus. Front swings added to rear tilts can be done before or after the tilts, but you'll need to check focus if you swing your original focus points out of position.

The real issue with back tilts/swings is the changes they make in the image. Front tilts/swings do not do this. If you tilt the back back (i.e., the top of the back toward you), you'll make foreground objects appear larger and distant objects appear smaller. If that's what you're trying to do, great, but many times, this is undesirable (e.g., keeping vertical lines parallel in a building, etc.). In this case, it is better to position the camera back to give you the perspective rendering you want and use the tilts/swings on the front standard.

May I suggest that you read the articles on the LF Homepage about focusing the view camera and choosing the f-stop. Once digested, they will help immensely.

Best,

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, or why Asymmetrical tilt on the camera rear standard is no as often used as front tilt regardless if the tilt is asymmetric or not..

IMO, the asymmetrical tilt feature on the rear standard of a light weight field folder is more of a marketing moniker than real world image making useful feature. The two take around view cameras are 5x7 Sinar Norma, 6x9 Linhof Technikardan 23s (claimed to have asymmetrical movements when rotated side-ways) given the way both cameras are used, the asymmetrical movements are plain not relevant in real world image making. Far more relevant and important is the ability to apply precise camera movements in fraction of a degree with absolute stability essentially identically on front or rear camera standards is greatly more useful in many ways. Specifically if full lens aperture (typically f4.5) is used for film exposures, ala controlled plane of focus images, not everything in perceived focus images where exposure lens aperture is stopped down to f16 and smaller.

How important, relevant and significant are camera movements are to your image goals?
IMO, majority of landscape image which are created using a lightweight field folder is not demanding on camera movements.

Bernice




The real issue with back tilts/swings is the changes they make in the image. Front tilts/swings do not do this. If you tilt the back back (i.e., the top of the back toward you), you'll make foreground objects appear larger and distant objects appear smaller. If that's what you're trying to do, great, but many times, this is undesirable (e.g., keeping vertical lines parallel in a building, etc.). In this case, it is better to position the camera back to give you the perspective rendering you want and use the tilts/swings on the front standard.

May I suggest that you read the articles on the LF Homepage about focusing the view camera and choosing the f-stop. Once digested, they will help immensely.

Best,

Doremus

[Doremus Scudder]

Asymmetrical tilts and swings are just modifications of axis movements designed to make the photographer's job easier when applying these movements. They may be a bit faster or more precise than regular center-positioned axis movements, but really, there's no fundamental difference. Personally, I don't think they are much faster.

Heck, I've got so used to base tilts on my field cameras that I think I'm just about as fast with them as other photographers would be with asymmetrical or axis tilts.

The only thing the image really cares about is the relative position of film plane and lens. How any desired positioning of the two relative to each other is achieved is just a matter of engineering.

Best,

Doremus

[Bob Salomon]

Yes, or why Asymmetrical tilt on the camera rear standard is no as often used as front tilt regardless if the tilt is asymmetric or not..

IMO, the asymmetrical tilt feature on the rear standard of a light weight field folder is more of a marketing moniker than real world image making useful feature. The two take around view cameras are 5x7 Sinar Norma, 6x9 Linhof Technikardan 23s (claimed to have asymmetrical movements when rotated side-ways) given the way both cameras are used, the asymmetrical movements are plain not relevant in real world image making. Far more relevant and important is the ability to apply precise camera movements in fraction of a degree with absolute stability essentially identically on front or rear camera standards is greatly more useful in many ways. Specifically if full lens aperture (typically f4.5) is used for film exposures, ala controlled plane of focus images, not everything in perceived focus images where exposure lens aperture is stopped down to f16 and smaller.

How important, relevant and significant are camera movements are to your image goals?
IMO, majority of landscape image which are created using a lightweight field folder is not demanding on camera movements.

Bernice

No, none of the TK cameras have assymetrical movements in any position. When you turn them on their side you then have yaw free movements as the swing control is then beneath the tilt movement.
Asymmetrical movement are something else entirely!

[Bernice Loui]

Thanks for this clarification Bob, could not visualize how the TK could have asymmetrical movements (read this claim some where, no longer remember where) based on how the TK is built and operates.

The Yaw Free thing is another "thing", another feature intended to ease/simplify combined camera movements. Again, a feature not a requirement.
Sinar's AD promo of the "advantages" of Yaw Free, Sinar is not the only view camera to offer this perk.

https://dynewskiphotography.com/sinar-information-no-22/


Bernice




No, none of the TK cameras have assymetrical movements in any position. When you turn them on their side you then have yaw free movements as the swing control is then beneath the tilt movement.
Asymmetrical movement are something else entirely!

[Alan Klein]

This makes sense to me. So, I I am really wanting to increase emphasis on a foreground/or background element using rear tilt, then I must use the traditional iterative focusing methodology vs the asymmetrical. If I am understanding correctly.

Yes that;s correct.

Also, it may be easier to use the iterative front tilt method if the asymmetrical lines don't line up with the focus points you're interested in. That saves the time to raise and lower the front standard to line them up and return to capture position.

[Alan Klein]

I think we're overcomplicating things for the OP. Let me take a stab at oversimplification :)

Asymmetrical tilts and swings are simply axis tilts/swings with the axes displaced off-center. Using them is very similar to using axis movements.

In the specific case of back asymmetrical tilts, one chooses a distant object that lies in the desired plane of sharp focus and focuses that on the corresponding axis line on the ground glass (bottom of gg in this case). The back is then tilted around that axis until a foreground object that lies in the desired plane of focus is in sharp focus on the other axis (or reference) line.

*** complication ahead! ***
In theory, that should be all it takes to apply the movement. If the camera is designed well, the asymmetrical tilt/swing lines on the ground glass will be exactly where the actual axes are for the movements, so no refocusing should be needed once the initial focusing has been done. That said, camera engineering is rarely that precise and fine adjustments of focus are often needed.

Once you have applied the movement to your satisfaction, then focusing comes into play. There are a number of different methods of focusing the view camera. If you've placed your plane of sharp focus with the movements on points that you want to focus on, then you're basically already done with focusing. The trick now is to find an f-stop that gives you the depth of field you desire. That's another can of worms, so I'll leave that for another thread.

If you want to apply other movements, that can be done before or after applying the asymmetrical movements depending on which movements you use. If you apply front rise/fall or lateral shift on the front standard, then no refocusing will be needed; you can do these movements before or after applying your asymmetrical rear tilt or swing. However, if you want apply rear swings in addition to asymmetrical tilts, or or raise/lower the back, then you should apply those movements before the tilts, since you'll displace the ground glass and change the focus. Front swings added to rear tilts can be done before or after the tilts, but you'll need to check focus if you swing your original focus points out of position.

The real issue with back tilts/swings is the changes they make in the image. Front tilts/swings do not do this. If you tilt the back back (i.e., the top of the back toward you), you'll make foreground objects appear larger and distant objects appear smaller. If that's what you're trying to do, great, but many times, this is undesirable (e.g., keeping vertical lines parallel in a building, etc.). In this case, it is better to position the camera back to give you the perspective rendering you want and use the tilts/swings on the front standard.

May I suggest that you read the articles on the LF Homepage about focusing the view camera and choosing the f-stop. Once digested, they will help immensely.

Best,

Doremus

With the Chamonix 45H-1 I have, the axis is about 1/5 of the way from the bottom. Often in a landscape, that line is in the sky where you don;t want to focus or really can't becasue there's no object to focus on. So you have to lower the standard to get the line let's say on the top of a distant tree. Then focus for distance. Then raise the front standard to the frame view you wanted and had originally.

So what do you do with the top line if that's not on the near object you want to focus with the back tilt?

[Mark Sawyer]

Respectfully, I checked the focus after doing the tilt and it didn't move. No refocusing was necessary on my Chamonix 45H-1. Which asymmetrical camera did you try that required refocusing?

On the Chamonix, the axis (hinge location) is below the frame. That's where it tilts from, so of course any tilt moves everything off the focal plane. The bottom of the frame near the hinges moves less, but all areas off the tilt axis move. And the tilt axis is outside the picture area.


Regardless, the best practice is rechecking focus after all movements have been dialed in.

[Tin Can]

LX Horsemen 4X5 and 8X10 have more than enough movements

Base tilts and center tilts, or whatever you call them

Studio camera http://www.photographyreview.com/product/cameras/film-cameras/large-format/horseman/horseman-450-lx-c-4x5-camera.html

While looking for Horseman data I found Oren!

He is credited by B&H by explaining the many field variations

http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/LFN/CamProf_Horseman1.htm

Oren Grad (http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/LFN/CamProf_Horseman1.htm)

Thank you!






I have a catalog, extensive. I also have 2 LX

[dave_whatever]

Speaking as someone who owns and uses both the Chamonix models with rear asymmetric tilt (045F and 045H) and have used similar cameras that don't (Shen Hao, and Ebony RSW45), honestly the rear asymmetric tilt is LOADS faster than using front tilt, as it removes the iterative stages. If anyone out there thinks this is some sort of marketing gimmick with no real world application, well, this isn't my experience. I use it for literally every landscape image I use, with the exception of shots where I need to keep the rear standard vertical. When the Ebony models appeared with this feature a certain British landscape photographer described it as being the large format equivalent of autofocus, it was that easy.

What I will say is you have to understand the limitations. If there is no object on the tilt line that you want in focus (i.e. open sky) then it's not useful. If you shoot with a 120 back then the axis is probably out of shot entirely. And if you need to keep the camera back vertical for architectural reasons, or vertical trees, then it's not useful and you're back to using normal iterative front tilt. But for landscape images looking slightly downward with the horizon in the upper half of the image it is superb.

Getting back to the OP, you obviously can't use the rear tilt solely to adjust image geometry/perspective without impacting on focus, ju

[Bernice Loui]

As previously mentioned, depends on how much camera movement is involved. Rear tilt does alter image geometry. This is the baked in trade off, for outdoor land scape images, the typical amount of rear tilt used is likely going to be small which allows enough tolerance for alterations in image geometry. Alterations in geometry might not tolerable at all for in studio images with straight line geometric shapes ... like boxes..

Point being, rear tilt or swing is not always usable in for Bending the "plane of focus"... it is highly dependent on image need and generalizations are at best... generalizations..

As for asymmetric tilt being "loads" faster, that still depends on the skill and ability of the specific image maker. At best the camera is an aid for the image maker it still comes down to the skill and abilities of the image maker to fully utilize the tools (camera and such) to achieve their image goals.


Bernice




honestly the rear asymmetric tilt is LOADS faster than using front tilt, as it removes the iterative stages. If anyone out there thinks this is some sort of marketing gimmick with no real world application, well, this isn't my experience. I use it for literally every landscape image I use, with the exception of shots where I need to keep the rear standard vertical.

Getting back to the OP, you obviously can't use the rear tilt solely to adjust image geometry/perspective without impacting on focus, ju

[Bernice Loui]

Concept of asymmetrical tilt or swing is nicely illustrated in the Sinar info# 8..

Multi exposure sequence of the asymmetric rear tilt on a Sinar P, Sinar P has this same feature on the front standard..
232970
https://dynewskiphotography.com/sinar-info-no-8/

Note the point/area of focus remains stable as the tilt movement is moved over it's range of movement. This is the idea/concept and goal of asymmetric tilt or swing, to hold a point/area in focus as the tilt or swing movement is applied.

Regardless of the asymmetric tilt/swing camera movement feature, applying camera movements remains a iterative process. At best asymmetrical camera movements can aid or ease the application of these camera movements IF properly applied and used with a full understanding of how it does with it does..


Bernice

[Tin Can]

SINAR Model C just to add confusion (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/sinar-4x5-c-vs-f2-vs-p-series.157190/)

I have owned and used all this, sold a lot of SINAR

except Norma

[Alan Klein]

On the Chamonix, the axis (hinge location) is below the frame. That's where it tilts from, so of course any tilt moves everything off the focal plane. The bottom of the frame near the hinges moves less, but all areas off the tilt axis move. And the tilt axis is outside the picture area.


Regardless, the best practice is rechecking focus after all movements have been dialed in.

Mark, That isn't correct. The Chamonix axis on my 45H-1 is not below the frame but about 1/5 the distance above the bottom of the frame. So the picture stays in focus in the frame where the axis is. Which Chamonix do you have that puts the axis beneath the frame??

[pchong]

Interesting discussion, especially for a new user. I have two further questions:

1. Is the tilt axis of the Sinar P system also asymmetric?

If I am not mistaken, the Horseman LX has the ability to pick your tilt axis using a geared scale. This scale is available on both front and rear standards. Does this mean that the front and rear must be moved the same amount?

2. In the Sinar manual, it recommends only using rear tilts for a subject distance of less than 5x the focal length. And not to use front tilts as this may affect magnification. Is it then a necessary trade off for table top or macro work to live with image geometry?

[Mark Sawyer]

Mark, That isn't correct. The Chamonix axis on my 45H-1 is not below the frame but about 1/5 the distance above the bottom of the frame. So the picture stays in focus in the frame where the axis is. Which Chamonix do you have that puts the axis beneath the frame??

Below is the type of Chamonix 4x5 I'm familiar with. As you can see, the pivot point is aligned with the bottom of the rear standard frame, not the bottom of the ground glass area. Yours may be different. But the location of the bottom of the frame will change compared to the pivot point depending on whether the back is set for horizontal or vertical.

Either way, I'd still always double-check the focus after changing the movements. Perhaps it's just a matter of personal working style.

[Alan Klein]

Mark, Not all Chamonixes have asymmetrical tilts. The model you pictured has none. Here's a link for the Chamonix site showing the 45H-1 model which I own. Notice in the second picture down that the hinge point on the rear standard is about 1/3 to 1/4 from the bottom, (not 1/5 as I posted earlier). That's the point that will stay in focus when you tilt the rear standard.

https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/cameras/45h1

I will say that the advantage of asymmetrical focusing is marginal. The problem is often that the hinge line for distance might be in the sky where there's nothing to focus on. So you have to lower the front standard to pick let's say a distant tree top. Then return the standard to the framed position for the picture. Two extra movements. So you might as well tilt the front standard using the multiple iterations. Of course, if the distant focal point is on the asymmetrical line, to begin with, then the asymmetrical tilting process has an advantage.

The other issue is tilting the back standard changing the size of the near objects making them appear bigger. Some landscape photographers like that effect, while others don't. If you're not happy with the effect, then you have to fall back to the iteration methods and use the front standard for tilting. Tilting it does not change the size of the subjects.

[Doremus Scudder]

With the Chamonix 45H-1 I have, the axis is about 1/5 of the way from the bottom. Often in a landscape, that line is in the sky where you don;t want to focus or really can't becasue there's no object to focus on. So you have to lower the standard to get the line let's say on the top of a distant tree. Then focus for distance. Then raise the front standard to the frame view you wanted and had originally.

So what do you do with the top line if that's not on the near object you want to focus with the back tilt?

As long as you're only using the lens stage rise/fall or lateral shift to reposition your lines so they correspond better with focus points, you're fine; you're not changing the position of the focus plane at the film/ground glass. Just don't apply a front tilt or swing first. If you do, using rise/fall (with tilt) or shift (with swing) will change the lens-to-film distance.

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

Sinar P/P2/X has asymmetric tilt and swing on front and rear standards. This can greatly ease setting up tilt or swing camera. movements front or rear, front and rear.. If combined tilt and swing is used these combined movements are yaw free. Again easing the difficult for the image maker to apply these combined camera movements on front or rear standards or front and rear standards as combined camera movements. Asymmetric tilt and swing movements are self stopping geared as are rise/fall/shift further easing the application camera movements.

~Know this camera capability is often far excessive for typical outdoor landscape images, but serious time and effort savers for in-studio controlled images..
IMO, this is why Sinar P/P2/X/C and such are not popular view cameras today as the majority of view camera folks today do outdoor landscape and similar images that are not demanding on camera movements and camera capabilities. Once creating indoor images with complex set up and high power flash/strobe lighting these Sinar and similar view cameras come into their very own in what they are easily capable of offering and achieving for the image maker.

Recommendations, are just recommendations. How and what camera movements are needed depends on the specific image. Alterations in magnification could be a disaster or absolutely acceptable.. it simply depends on the image goal and never always absolute.


Bernice



Interesting discussion, especially for a new user. I have two further questions:

1. Is the tilt axis of the Sinar P system also asymmetric?

If I am not mistaken, the Horseman LX has the ability to pick your tilt axis using a geared scale. This scale is available on both front and rear standards. Does this mean that the front and rear must be moved the same amount?

2. In the Sinar manual, it recommends only using rear tilts for a subject distance of less than 5x the focal length. And not to use front tilts as this may affect magnification. Is it then a necessary trade off for table top or macro work to live with image geometry?