Cameras with front swing vs. cameras without it...how important?

[audioexcels]

Just curious what everyone thinks of the importance of having swing on their cameras specifically on the front standard?...and on the rear?

What does everyone use swing for in particular? In other words, what is the vast majority of the use of swing?

Lastly, how much is swing used in your images?

[eric black]

I use swings tilts and shifts on both front and back in difficult to focus situations (ie standing near a cliff and shooting down the cliffside or trying to get a near and very far object both in focus with perspective that doesnt look freekish- I try to keep swings and tilts to 10 degrees or less but have on occasion gone as far as 15 degrees which can heighten the freekish factor. Rises and falls I take to the limits of what the lens will allow. Hope this helps!

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you have swing on only one standard, you can "swing" the non-swinging standard indirectly by swinging the other standard, turning the camera, and using shift to recompose.

If you have swing on both standards and you run out of shift, you can swing both standards parallel to each other and turn the camera to do indirect shift.

[Walter Calahan]

Nice to have when you need it.

My Speed and Crown Graphics have swing when used vertically, tilt when used horizontally.

When I need full correction, I don't use the Graphics. Instead I grab my full featured cameras.

I don't keep track of how much I use this stuff. Nice to have when it's needed.

[Oren Grad]

I hardly ever use swing - maybe one picture out of a hundred, if that. No particular pattern to how or when I use it. I don't care whether it's on the front or rear standard or both.

It depends on what you want to photograph. If I did serious architecture or table top studio work, I'd want a camera with finesse and a wide range of control for every possible movement. But for the kind of casual snapshooting in the field that I do, almost any camera with decent rigidity, lots of front rise and a bit of tilt, either front or rear, will do.

[steve simmons]

My advice is to have a camera with swing and tilts on the front and back. With these movements you can mimic rise and fall and shift front and back.


steve simmons

[Jack Flesher]

It depends. For most landscapes, I use it rarely. The exception is a fence or tree line that angles away or towards the camera -- here I use it frequently to keep everything on that line in focus. Usually that shot is with a wider lens, so I typically only need a very slight amount of swing to accomodate that need -- say 1 - 3 degrees in most cases. In that use, I'll add the swing from either standard and I have no preference other than running out of IC; so if I could only have it on one standard, I'd prefer it on the rear.

Like David and Steve both said, a camera has those movements on the front and rear can give you a lot of added flexibility when used together for other indirect movements, when needed. But I would not say that is essential for the typical field use camera, especially when carry-weight is a consideration.

Cheers,

[sanking]

Just curious what everyone thinks of the importance of having swing on their cameras specifically on the front standard?...and on the rear?

What does everyone use swing for in particular? In other words, what is the vast majority of the use of swing?

Lastly, how much is swing used in your images?

I find it useful to have tilts and swings on both the front and rear. In fact, for many scenes having the tilts and swings both places is not only useful, but essential if you hope to get both perspective control and good sharpness over the whole field.

My typical work flow is to first use the rear swings and tilts for perspective control, and then the front swings and tilts to control sharpness, and rise or fall to place the image. Basically I tend to set the back up so that it is level and at right angles to plane of the earth, then I adjust the front swings and tilts for sharpness, and finally use rise or fall to place the image where I want it.

I use some form of swing or tilt, and rise or fall, about 95% of the time.

Sandy King

[paulr]

in urban areas it comes in handy, like if you're at an angle to wall or fence or row of buildings, etc.

i use front swing once in a while. my camera doesn't have rear swing and i don't think it's ever been an issue.

[Gordon Moat]

I use both front and rear swing quite often. In urban shooting, you might find yourself across a street, but want a shot looking somewhat down the street, with the other street side in sharp focus.

The other times I use these movements is when creating a selective focus wedge. The idea is that the scene to the left and right of the focus wedge will be defocused. It is an unusual effect, and not something everyone wants.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Brian Ellis]

I use swing much less often than I use tilt, rise, and fall but I do use it (usually front swing) on occasion and I don't think I'd want a LF camera without swing on either front or back. I've never in 14 years of large format photography used front and back swing simultaneously so one or the other but not both would be fine with me. The importance of front and/or back swing probably depends to a considerable extent on the type of photography someone does - a landscape photographer is less likely to need front and back swing than a commercial product photographer or an architectural photographer and a portrait photographer likely needs neither.

[Bob Salomon]

It was mentioned slightly in one post but it is very important that the OP realize that back tilts and swings change the shape of the subject as well as allow you to control the plane of focus. Front tilt and swings only control the plane of focus.

So both are equally important when it is important to preserve the shape of the subject. Either will suffice when the preserving of the subject's shape is not important.

But then there is also the question of shifts and rise on the front and rear. Which are most important and are they both needed.

[David_Senesac]

I just took a look at the large format landscape prints I market on my website homepage and others I have cued up. Of those 70 images, I guessed I only used swing on about 9 and in most cases just a little. More often in landscapes, one has a foreground, middle ground, and background with each region tending to be equidistant across the horizontal frame at a given vertical frame height. Pretty much the result of gravity in a vertical dimension affecting our flat planet. Thus we rarely see situations where subject distances increase from side to side. For example a near oblique shot of a cliff wall.

However occasionally there are elements that rise up through vertical frame heights that one might compensate for at the expense of the other frame side. The problem is adding swing on one side, say a tree rising up on the side of a frame will throw off the focus on the other side. For example if a horizontal band of the background at infinity distance is positioned at the two-thirds height of a frame, and one uses some swing to better focus on a tree that rises on the left side of a frame from bottom to top, any compensation to focus close on the left may result in less focus for the background adjacent to the tree. Whenever I choose to use swing in such a situation, I am sure to be stopping my lens down as far as possible to mitigate the negative focus effects. Recently I recall using a bit of swing on the below image link to help the focus on the tall middle ground pinnacle at frame left:

http://www.davidsenesac.com/slideshows/Upcoming/bent_pinnacle.jpg

...David

[Ole Tjugen]

Much of the landscape around here is close to vertical, so I use movements about as much as others do for architecture.

Yet my most used cameras don't have front swing. I find that a little bit of back swing usually does the job.

[sanking]

It was mentioned in an earlier post that back tilts and swings change the shape of the subject as well as allow you to control the plane of focus. Front tilt and swings only control the plane of focus.

What we might also mention is that front swings and tilts displace the circle of coverage much more than the use of back swings and tilts. In other words, if you use front swings and tilts you need to start with a lens that has a good excess of coverage relative to the format. In the old days most lenses did not cover as much as they do today, and I think this may explain why most of the old view cameras lack swing and tilt on the front.

Photographers starting out in LF should thoroughly review the sections on view camera movements in books devoted to the subject. When I first began working with view cameras I happened to have on hand some large wooden blocks of the type often used in books on view cameras to illustrate movements, so I set them up in various configurations and practiced the actual movements. I encourage everyone to take the time to learn as much as possible about the use of movements because they are a powerful control.

BTW, for a very general idea about view camera movements check out here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_camera#View_camera_movements

Sandy King

[Doug Dolde]

I've never used swing. Tilt yes often but mostly front. Rise and fall yes often.

[Bob Salomon]

"front swings and tilts displace the circle of coverage much more than the use of back swings and tilts. In other words,"

Sandy,

There are base tilt camera, optical axis tilt cameras and assymetrical tilt cameras. And then some cameras have base and optical axis on all standards, some have base in back and optical axis in front and some have all 3 types of movement. The above statement does not apply to all types.

[sanking]

"front swings and tilts displace the circle of coverage much more than the use of back swings and tilts. In other words,"

Sandy,

There are base tilt camera, optical axis tilt cameras and assymetrical tilt cameras. And then some cameras have base and optical axis on all standards, some have base in back and optical axis in front and some have all 3 types of movement. The above statement does not apply to all types.

Bob,

That is a very interesting observation. I have to admit that in my thinking about this I had only anticipated the impact of tilts around the optical axis. I am trying to get my mind around this, but even recognizing the different configurations it still seems to me that front tilts and swings will generally give more displacement than rear tilt and swings.

Could you identify any good literature on this?

Sandy

[Jack Flesher]

"front swings and tilts displace the circle of coverage much more than the use of back swings and tilts. In other words,"

Sandy,

There are base tilt camera, optical axis tilt cameras and assymetrical tilt cameras. And then some cameras have base and optical axis on all standards, some have base in back and optical axis in front and some have all 3 types of movement. The above statement does not apply to all types.

Bob, with all due respect, ANY SWING (or TILT) on the lens standard, be it base, axial, orbital or assymetric, displaces the center axis of the lens' IC off the center of the image (film) plane. So with any lens that is short of spare IC, you run the risk of hitting the edge of the IC, especially at the corners. A rear shift or rise can re-center it, but that will also change your framing.

Cheers,

[audioexcels]

I use both front and rear swing quite often. In urban shooting, you might find yourself across a street, but want a shot looking somewhat down the street, with the other street side in sharp focus.

The other times I use these movements is when creating a selective focus wedge. The idea is that the scene to the left and right of the focus wedge will be defocused. It is an unusual effect, and not something everyone wants.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

I'm trying to recall where I sall this, but I need to check this website link and see if this is where the photographer is located. The person uses these movements and basically gets particular objects in the scene in focus and blurrrrrrs out particular other aspects of the scene. The photos look rediculously amazing to me. It's like a relief from the usual that is seen of rather "static" traditional LF images.

[Mattg]

Like Gordon I tend to use front swing to create selective focus. I think it works best in landscape format shots so that you have a vertical line through the print that is in focus and everything else blurred.

I've been caught out by image circle issues using this technique when using larger apertures than normal. Of course the image circle at F11 is no where near what it is at F22 and if your selected subject falls outside this smaller circle you get nothing in focus and another trip to do the thing properly.

I reckon I use front swing about 10% of the time, split evenly between using it for better focus and better defocus.

[scott_6029]

Hmm, I find, especially when moving in on a subject ofter requiring extended bellows...back swing is particularly needed...as my arms are not long enough to reach the front to do front swing while viewing the glass. This is of course on 8 x 10 and 7 x 17. 4 x 5 is a different matter...probable prefer rear swing, but Bob said it well earlier about retaining proper perspective...

[Daniel Geiger]

I use front swing and (i.e., both)/or tilt on most close-ups, usually around 1:1. But have rarely used back swing/tilt; though once or twice in three years it was crucial to get the shot I wanted, i.e., distort the object to get good composition. On a rare occasion, I will use parallel front-back swing/tilt to get more rise/shift with the 90XL on 4x5. Regular shift/rise I use mainly to fine-tune framing, like a xy-macrofocussing stage on 35 mm, though on 4x5 it would be yz if x is in optical axis.

[Gordon Moat]

I'm trying to recall where I sall this, but I need to check this website link and see if this is where the photographer is located. The person uses these movements and basically gets particular objects in the scene in focus and blurrrrrrs out particular other aspects of the scene. The photos look rediculously amazing to me. It's like a relief from the usual that is seen of rather "static" traditional LF images.

Well I did get the idea from viewing the work of a few others. One thing that was apparant in many of the images I saw was a high angle of view (camera placement) above the scene. So without having an airplane nor a helicopter at my disposal, and rarely getting a chance to be much above the scenes I wanted to shoot, I had to figure out a method at ground level. One architecture photographer whose site I viewed showed one possible solution, which I have mostly worked out.

Then I stumbled across some ground level images from David Burnett. He was using a lens with a fairly large aperture for a view camera, which probably helped, but I got a few ideas from viewing some of his examples.

Sometimes it can be near headache inducing to figure out where I want to place a wedge of focus. It gets easier to see on a ground glass than to explain it. I will have a few of these on my upcoming website. Unfortunately I am behind in setting up a flatbed scanner I got recently, or I might be able to share a few examples.

Hopefully a few others here will post some sites that have good examples. I found that you don't need a high viewpoint (camera position) to accomplish the effect. It is not appropriate for many scenes, but when it works it is very unique at ground level.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Don Hutton]

"front swings and tilts displace the circle of coverage much more than the use of back swings and tilts. In other words,"

Sandy,

There are base tilt camera, optical axis tilt cameras and assymetrical tilt cameras. And then some cameras have base and optical axis on all standards, some have base in back and optical axis in front and some have all 3 types of movement. The above statement does not apply to all types.Bob

Please let us in on which types of front standard tilt Sandy's statement does not apply to?