Deliberate perspective distortion

[Chris Jones]

I was wondering if any one may know of LF art photographers who deliberately distort perspective to make it look odd (for want of a better way of saying it) by making use of view camera movements?

Too add a little extra....

Perhaps by way of an example, trees that appear to be falling out of the picture frame, hoping not to be misleading by use of one example here, of course. Also perspective in broader terms such as focus as well as perspective lines which may or may not converge and whatever else. I am perhaps thinking of aesthetic questions, however aesthetic and technical planes are one plane if I start to unravel this a bit more but again; could this too be misleading.

I have just purchased my first monorail, a Calumet 45N, so am a little new to this area despite the fact that the camera looked very familiar to me once in the hand as if I had used one in past decades and centuries but had simply forgotten (which could be likely given my memory...) I am also a poet and novelist and point of view questions can get quite complex and difficult in this realm; free indirect discourse for example. But then back to the question or is this side shadowing perspective as lateral transfer in refusing fore and back shadowing? Etc etc

[Frank Petronio]

Bill Brandt did it...

[Leonard Evens]

Technically, perspective refers to the position of the lens relative to the scene. This determines how elements of the scene line up. View camera movements don't affect perspective.

What you can control is the following.

1. Through rise, fall, and horizontal shifts, you can control to some extent what is in the frame. With a fixed lens camera, the lens axis will always pass through the center of the frame. With such movements, you can move it up or down or to the side.

2. Through tilts or swings, you can control the exact plane of focus. With a conventional camera, this will always be a plane perpendicular to the lens axis and at some distance from the lens.

3. Through choice of focal length, you can control certain other aspects of the image, and by choice of f-stop, you can control depth of field, i.e. what is in adequate fous. This is the same for a view camera and a fixed lens camera, except when using a tilt or swing, in which case it is a bit more complicated.

Generally, view camera photography is much more deliberative than smaller format photography. Because of the cost in materails and in time adjusting the camera, view camera photographers spend a lot more time composing the scene and thinking hard about what they want to accomplish. Of course, other photographers often do the same thing, but it is almost impossible not to do so when using a view camera. As a result, view camera photographers make more conscious use of the basic principles of photography, even though these principles are not very different than for other forms.

You would be well advised to get one of the standard texts on the subject and study it. Steve Simmons's Using the View Camera is a good plae to start. Stroebel's View Camera Technique is the most complete book. Jim Stone's A User's Guide to the View Camera is also helpful. The large format website has lots of information on various aspects of view camera photography.

[Jim Noel]

When photographing in nature it is not unusual to use tilts or swings to distort a particular object. For instance the use of back tilts to emphasize an important foreground object which has not straight lines, like a rock.

[John T]

I think you should try it to see if it meets with your expectations, concepts and aesthetics. You mention that you are a poet. Do you only attempt what is tried and true or do you explore the medium and see how you feel about the results.

Many photographers produce spectacular photos using only what are considered standard (acceptable?) procedures, while others push the technical envelope to see what else is out there. You need to do what feeds your creative impulses.

[tim atherton]

Perspective itself is also a distortion (and, among other things depends in part on exactly which theory of perspective you happen to follow...).

Here are a few that briefly come to mind (though not quite what I think you were looking for)

Varburg

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=29359

barbieri
http://www.yanceyrichardson.com/artists/olivo-barbieri/index.html

Marc Räder
http://www.fotohof.or.at/exibhist/kuenstler.cfm?id=111&StammdatenID=971

etc
http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/03/worlds-in-minature.html

not LF, but maybe someone like Keith Carter?
http://www.photoeye.com/Gallery/forms/homepage.cfm?id=32132&door=1&Gallery=1&Page=

[Gordon Moat]

I learned perspective in drawing, where this refers to the relationship of foreground to background, especially objects in the foreground relating to objects in the background. There is also the possibility to distort the shape of objects, like with some rear movements on a view camera. I still have a load of scanning to accomplish, though basically this is the type of stuff I have been working on. Another thing is creating a wedge of focus/sharpness to slice through a scene, leaving the other areas defocused. Sometimes that makes large objects appear to be miniturized, or more like scaled models. The toughest aspect is visualizing a scene, though I have tried taking a sketchbook with me to a location to do a rough set-up of what I want; then lots of adjusting while viewing the ground glass.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Kirk Gittings]

Callahan in the 1970's

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/C/callahan/callahan_providence_77.html

[Baxter Bradford]

This deliberate restricted focus using the reverse direction of movement from that which you'd use to maximise sharpness is something I have been doing as a mini-series when a situation presents itself. Initially in B+W, have managed a few in colour. These three from this summer, I have some B+Ws which aren't properly finished yet. I concur that it can make buildings look toy-like.

[JW Dewdney]

chris - i apologize for a few of the obstinate responses thus far on behalf of the forum. Yes, though - lots of people have done stuff like that - it seems to me from what I can recall - there was a bit of a wave of that going on in the early 90s - along with using tilts and a wide aperture to get an unnatural looking focus plane.

[Andrew_4548]

Just like this you mean - another version along Baxter's lines...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/Apple/LF%20stuff/baths002b.jpg

I guess for your images, they look like toys due to the drastically reduced depth of field which implies macro pictures (on smaller formats) and hence little items...

[Patrik Roseen]

Here are some more...

picture 1 (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4749717&size=lg)

picture 2 (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4880962&size=lg)

[Struan Gray]

I use unconventional movements when taking abstracts of the ground in front of me. By tilting the rear standard forward I can reduce the sense of the photo receeding from me and make it more two-dimensional. I need to use even more forward tilt on the front standard to get things in focus, so narrow coverage lenses won't work, but I tend to use the technique with longer focal lengths where there is usually coverage to spare.

[Gordon Moat]

Lens coverage is definitely an issue with more extreme movements. When I started doing these with my 135mm, I was getting one or two dark corners on some shots, though the effect sometimes added to the composition. I tried using my Zessar 21cm, and things improved on coverage, which eventually led me to a more modern Nikkor 180mm. So I found for what I am doing the extra coverage on the 180mm works great, and it fits with a not too long focal length that I prefer.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

P.S. - Steve, I got your message, but your mailbox is full. Should be a couple days.

[Chris Jones]

A quick thanks for the replies. I was uncertain how to ask the question so that it was broad enough and yet not too vague but the question must have been close enough given the informative responses. There are a few poets around who are or have been in the past photographers, myself included. Aside from the obvious that photography pays more then poetry I have been curious about the links between photography and poetry and these responses go someway to answering this. Many thanks.

[rippo]

isn't chris asking about back standard movements though? most people seem to have given examples of front standard movements, where the plane of focus is shifted. when talking about perspective, or distorting the relationships between objects, that's a back-standard sort of thing. making a receding wall's lines parallel, or making a building appear taller by tilting the back standard forward etc. or did i get the question wrong?

[timparkin]

I think you'll have some better luck if you look up 'looming' in google..