Importance of Swing and other movements in LF Cameras

[audioexcels]

Well,

I decided that it was against my price bracket to splurge on such a pricey camera, but went ahead and sent payment off for the AS F-line Metric due to the versatility of it. I still have field cameras around, but I just cannot seem to justify their lack of movements and versatility compared to the monorail type camera, even these Arcas that can be considered field cameras especially when you can get the weight of one with a custom whole plate back to weigh in the 6.5lb figure which is pretty darn light for any camera on the market.

Without further due...

How many use swing and how much swing do you find yourself using on a frequent or even necessary basis even if for only a few situations of your work? Just how important is SWING (hey, we all did it in the 50's song no?:))


Swing aside, though I'd like the subject on swing to be somewhat of greater importance, what do people use for their primary movements and for all the field camera users, what do you find to be the most "lacking" aspect in terms of movements/lack there of movements? In other words, lets say you had the opportunity to use a monorail from any maker that has excellent versatility for movements, what would you want more of or are you satisfied with what you have available to you per movements?


Hopefully this thread will spring into an interesting one that involves not only the discussion of movements, their importance or lack of importance, and also why people will "live with" not having some movements they wish they could have.

Thanks!!!

P.S. I hope I was clear enough with this post:)!

[Gene McCluney]

I use tilt to get near foreground and distant background in focus at same time. I use swing to get subjects in focus left-to-right in frame. Especially important for large objects that are at an angle in the photograph, such as shooting an oblique (or 3/4) view of a bridge. I find I use both types of movement very frequently in my current work.
I use front rise or fall to get the subject positioned in the frame after leveling up the camera at shooting position. (I like vertical lines to be vertical)

If you are shooting with extreme wide-angle lenses, sometimes the swing and tilt can be eliminated just due to increased depth of field of the lens, but I still find I must use front rise or fall to position image, as I always level the camera first.

If you are shooting "organic" material, such as flowers, trees and rocks, then leveling up the camera is not such a requirement, but my exterior work is primarily vintage bridges and architecture, where I want minimal distortion.

[Kevin Crisp]

If you've already made your camera choice and purchase, then it really doesn't matter how much other people want and use movements. Shooting 4X5 and 5X7 solely for landscapes, I can live without front swing. I have only used it once, and I could have worked around that situation if I'd had to in three different ways. My latest 5X7 Deardorff has no front swing and the front standard is much more solid than the front swing DD models I have owned. Trading off rigidity for a feature I have very rarely used is an easy call for me. I use front rise and fall frequently and front tilt often. I have used front or rear shift a couple times, but could have worked around that "need" very easily too. A little movement goes a long, long way, but the comical 'twisted pretzel' view camera advertisement poses can lead people to believe otherwise.

People who photograph other things and work in a different manner need their movements. It sounds like you have all the movements you need, regardless of subject.

[audioexcels]

If you've already made your camera choice and purchase, then it really doesn't matter how much other people want and use movements. Shooting 4X5 and 5X7 solely for landscapes, I can live without front swing. I have only used it once, and I could have worked around that situation if I'd had to in three different ways. My latest 5X7 Deardorff has no front swing and the front standard is much more solid than the front swing DD models I have owned. Trading off rigidity for a feature I have very rarely used is an easy call for me. I use front rise and fall frequently and front tilt often. I have used front or rear shift a couple times, but could have worked around that "need" very easily too. A little movement goes a long, long way, but the comical 'twisted pretzel' view camera advertisement poses can lead people to believe otherwise.

People who photograph other things and work in a different manner need their movements. It sounds like you have all the movements you need, regardless of subject.

Well...landscape is definitely a primary thing for me, but so is getting things into a tweaked perspective/creative stuff, etc...I don't believe in "traditional" LF photography as the purpose of having those bellows is for tweaking things...or a Fotoman would do the job perfectly well.

Thanks for your list of movements and I hope this thread becomes fruitful with when/where/how people use movements, especially those that value a lot of swing.

Cheers!

[David A. Goldfarb]

In landscape photography you might use swing, say, when you've got a shoreline or a line of trees in the near field receding at an angle to the film plane, and you want it all in focus, or maybe you're photographing a rock face fairly close up, and you want it in focus, but you don't want the camera back parallel to the rock so that you can include something else in the scene.

I use all the movements the camera has at some time or other, but the main ones I use are front rise and front tilt.

[Capocheny]

Hi AE,

Congratulations on the purchase... it's a great camera!

Movements?

Do some table top shooting... you'll lose whatever hair you have in a very short period of time!!! :)

Have fun with it.

Cheers

[Gordon Moat]

I use a ton of movements, nearly to the edge of the image circles of my lenses, and sometimes beyond. Currently using a Shen-Hao HZX45A-II, which I have not found lacking in movements, though not any weight advantage over your Arca Swiss. If I could change anything, or redesign an HZX45A-III (or whatever they might call it), then I would add the ability to do front standard shift.

I recently even tried a two shift panorama using full rear shift. Still need to scan and stitch the two 4x5 frames, though I was happy to be able to do such a shot. I used a small amount of forward tilt at the front standard, and the rest was easy.

Using front and rear swing together is another effect I use at times. The idea is to create a wedge of focus, leaving the left and right sides of the image defocused to varying degrees. Do similar movements only with tilt, and it can create top and bottom image defocus. Or combine tilt on one standard, with swing on the other standard, and there is a more variable area of defocus. I am glad to be able to use these movements, and don't think I would do as well with a less movable camera.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Robbie Shymanski]

For architectural/HABS work, it cannot be done without tilts and swings. I am finding it close to imposible to do that level work without the ability to correct perspective throught the camera movements. Especially with wide angle shots. For me, that is a part of what makes LF so interesting. Working with planar movements makes PS seem more appropriate for a game console.

[Daniel_Buck]

I use a bit of swing (1 or 2 milimeters or so) when shooting trees and rocks sometimes, if there are trees/rocks close to camera on the left or right, and others on the opposite side farther away that I know I really want in focus. Then I'll swing just a bit. For most of the time though, I don't use swing or tilt because I just don't need it. If I don't need to use a movement, then I wont. Rise (or fall) I use for 75% of my images though, sometimes just a bit, sometimes several centimeters.

I guess it depends on what you shoot really, and how you like to shoot it.

[Ron Marshall]

Rarely do I ever use more than front tilt and front rise, which are both used for most shots.

[Preston]

I used all the movements available on my Tachihara, either singly or in combinations depending upon the photograph I wanted to make. Typically, I will use front tilt/swing/rise-fall. I will sometimes use a bit of back tilt or swing to change the shape of objects in the frame, or to correct convergence, if I am shooting architecture.

I love that Tachi, but wish it had front and rear shift, and rear rise/fall. But, I makes do with what I gots. :-)

-PB

-PB

[Ole Tjugen]

Front rise and fall are most important, but I often use a little bit of swing too. Shift is less important in landscapes.

The landscapes around here tend to be so far from flat that it's more like architecture photography, except that noone complains if the cliffs seem to be leaning over. :)

[Brad Rippe]

I just get under the darkcloth and experiment with all the options. You can do all the expected movements, but sometimes you can discover unusual relationships in the image. This is what is so amazing about a view camera.
Have fun with your Arca. I have the F-line field version and it is fabulous.
-Brad

[Emrehan Zeybekoglu]

I cannot imagine not using any movements on a camera. What's the purpose of a view camera if you don't use movements? Well, yes, the image quality is another reason but movements, including shift, are needed many times. In my case I think I'm using mostly rise/fall and tilt. Contrary to what some of us indicate, movements are important to me even in landscape photography.
E.Z.

[John Bowen]

I am fortunate to own one of Richard Ritter's 7x17 ULF cameras. It has asymetrical rear swing. I find this to be a great asset. My most recent experience with rear swings was a New England graveyard with a white picket fence in the foreground. My most used movements are front rise/fall and rear tilt. The only movement NOT available on Richard's ULF cameras is rear rise, but front fall accomplishes the same thing. I also enjoy the fact that the entire back/bellows can be converted from horizontal to vertical, in the field, in about 3 minutes. This is much easier than dealing with 2 tripods to get a vertical. Richard has recently begun taking orders for an 8x10 camera. I haven't seen one yet, but based on my experience with his ULF, I have one on order. Richard's 8x0 camera is available with a large assortmment of backs. If you are looking for a lightweight field camera that doesn't compromise on movements, check out Richard's offerings.

[Skorzen]

This is the first image in which I really used swings, I just kinda took an idea and ran with it. This would not have been possible without using swing.

http://www.pbase.com/wfournier/image/92017462/large.jpg

[audioexcels]

This is the first image in which I really used swings, I just kinda took an idea and ran with it. This would not have been possible without using swing.

http://www.pbase.com/wfournier/image/92017462/large.jpg

That's a wonderful photo. How much swing and/or what camera did you use to achieve this one?

[Eric Woodbury]

Good question. I take mostly landscape and abstracts. I use the front rise/fall and the rear tilt the most. Sometimes rear swing. I don't like to tilt much on the front so that the image circle doesn't move. As was mentioned, I too would take sturdiness over any additional movements.

[Skorzen]

That's a wonderful photo. How much swing and/or what camera did you use to achieve this one?

This is an old B&J 4X5 folding View camera, I don't know exactly how much swing I used but I am guessing somewhere around 20 degrees of rear swing, in hindsight (and maybe if I had a loupe on me) I would have liked a little more so that the focal plane extended to the crucifix.

[ljb0904]

Most of my stuff is standard back tilt or front rise, whether on my Osaka (Tachihara) or or on the Arca. However, I'm starting to explore a little more with shallow DOF and bringing focal plane on primary subject which means swing, tilt, whatever it takes to isolate the subject.

[Alan Davenport]

The main use for swings and tilts is to place the plane of focus in the best location in the subject space, so the amount of defocus anywhere else is minimized. Most landscapes work well with just a little front tilt. Other subjects, such as a receding fence or wall, will work best with swing. Swings and tilts are exactly the same thing, but with the axis of rotation 90 degrees apart. When combined, the plane of focus can be placed on a sloping hillside in front of the camera.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/112/256798940_0655574667.jpg

Here, the flower was about a foot or so from the lens, and located on a steep hillside sloping down from right to left. Using both tilt and swing allowed me to focus everything adequately. I also had to use both front and rear movements, since the amount of tilt required exceeded the image circle of the lens. The bellows factor between the foreground, at 1/4 of life size, and the background was 1/2 stop difference. Luckily, a bit of hazy sunlight appeared to light the foreground.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/98/252158852_8e22e7310b.jpg

In short, the answer to the original question is that swings are indispensable.
You may not need every available movement for every shot, but you will need them...

[mrladewig]

I would put myself in the class of landscape photog who so far uses front rise and front tilt only. I wouldn't mind having a rear shift capability for some panoramic setups, but I wouldn't want to live with the weight or size and can use a crop from an ultrawide lens to accomplish what I want.

[audioexcels]

Most of my stuff is standard back tilt or front rise, whether on my Osaka (Tachihara) or or on the Arca. However, I'm starting to explore a little more with shallow DOF and bringing focal plane on primary subject which means swing, tilt, whatever it takes to isolate the subject.

Fantastic shots on your site. How did you scan them in?

[audioexcels]

The main use for swings and tilts is to place the plane of focus in the best location in the subject space, so the amount of defocus anywhere else is minimized. Most landscapes work well with just a little front tilt. Other subjects, such as a receding fence or wall, will work best with swing. Swings and tilts are exactly the same thing, but with the axis of rotation 90 degrees apart. When combined, the plane of focus can be placed on a sloping hillside in front of the camera.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/112/256798940_0655574667.jpg

Here, the flower was about a foot or so from the lens, and located on a steep hillside sloping down from right to left. Using both tilt and swing allowed me to focus everything adequately. I also had to use both front and rear movements, since the amount of tilt required exceeded the image circle of the lens. The bellows factor between the foreground, at 1/4 of life size, and the background was 1/2 stop difference. Luckily, a bit of hazy sunlight appeared to light the foreground.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/98/252158852_8e22e7310b.jpg

In short, the answer to the original question is that swings are indispensable.
You may not need every available movement for every shot, but you will need them...

Fantastic shot, information, and also many thanks to all those explaining what their primary movements in use are. Sounds like the majority use primary rise/fall/little tilt/swing.

It's incredible how much detail is in even the smallest sheet (4X5) of film. It almost makes the photo look surreal, especially in landscape shots of any kind...you can see every speck of life on the earth.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Most landscapes work well with just a little front tilt.
Agreed 100%. Superb images & demonstration, thanks Allan !

"a little front tilt" raises an interesting technical question about what happnes with smaller formats e.g. 6x9cm or recent Mf digital backs (39x47mm for example)
In fact if you assume than you use sharper lenses with a smaller image circle and a sensor with enough resolution (and unlimited budget, this is anotehr story), there is no reason why you could not achieve an image on a smaller format with exactly the same sharpness and level of fine details as in GF. On film you could test the German GIgabit® film for example and decide that LF is useless.


HOWEVER.
In smaller sensor or film formats since you need to enlarge more you have to keep your lenses open wider otherwise you get diffraction that degrades your image quality. So you do not get a reall advantage in Depth of Field (DOF) when you are aiming at the same high level of quality in the final print with smaller formats and shorter focal lengths. (this can be demonsrated with algebra based on classical DOF formulae)

AND the amount of required front tilt angles (same applies to small swing angles) becomes VERY SMALL and not easily manageable with small focal lenghts.
I mean : for the same sharpness and DOF limits in object space (the same DOF wedge and same final resolution criterion on a subsequently enlarged image to the same final size)

Incidently, this is the reason why I do not believe (at least for my personal use) in the real interest of devices that allow you to adapt a "35mm" digital SLR on a bellows in order to get movements. Not only the reflex mirror prevents you against the use of wide angle lenses for your tiny format, moreover you cannot use all shifts or rise you could imagine because the rays a quickly cut-off by the reflex chamber, but even worse, you have to apply minuscule tilt angles in order to get the same results as with a larger formats.
Those systems, however can provide a certain service in macro work with "long" focal lengths where tilt angles become more tractable : tilt angles according to Scheimpflug's rules do not depend on the format, only on the focal length.
However once your Scheimpflug setup is done, DOF wedges on both sides of the sharper object plane depend indirectly on the format throught the criterion of sharpness you require and the f-stops you are allowed to use : f/32 is forbidden for the 18x24mm half-chip format ! At least if you want to compete with larger formats seriously !

In 6x9 you already need a very precise mechanism to be able to apply small tilts or swings. For example with the 100mm standard focal length, if the camera is located at 1.5 metre (5feet) above ground, you'll need about 4 degrees to bring the horizontal ground plane sharp on your quasi-vertical GG, and half this angle, 2 degrees only if you use a "semi-Scheimpflug" angle in order to get the top of the distant tree sharper (DOF volumes are wedge-shaped !!)
No problem with good & precise monorails ;-) but this could be problematic with some field cameras designs (problems with the zero detent)

With a 39x47mm format, one degree of tilt angle is something you cannnot neglect of you want to be able to achieve the same image quality as in GF. And 1/2 degree is not one degre and even 1/2 degree is not negligible again if you want a final image for the same print quality.

So the bigger the format, the easier you can achieve the required amount of tilt with simple mechanisms.
For the 39x47 format, things become really problematic and require a really fine control on tilts.

So another way to consider the advantage of LF photography is that you get the same level of incredible sharpness as you would get on a smaller format with top-notch expensive lenses dspecially designed for smaller formats, but you get it easily, it is manageable by a human operator manually and visually on the ground glass, you do not have to rely on a computer-controlled laboratory micrometric translation or goniometric stage, you do not have to control the image on a laptop screen !!

[audioexcels]

I also prefer to see the German device compared to full plate or 8X10 for resolution;).

Excellent points. Thank You!

BTW, I really need to link this person's Flickr images. He's made this DIY photoman looking deal using a Hassy back, but it does have some miniscule bellows for movements, though he primary seems to shoot rather direct/straight shots of interiors with no movements...but his work with 4X5 film, in spite it is only a Flickr image, is truly impressive. One would be half-hazzard to guess it is not digital. When I saw Hassleblad as the back he used, I immediately associated that with digital and thought these shots were digital. I was extremely impressed and at the same time thinking, wow would that be great to get shots like that...go figure, it's FILM he's using!!! Of course his 5D images look great, too, but the most impressing are these film images I thought were digital;).

I stand corrected even further...these are 6X6 images...bloody rediculous if you ask me!

http://flickr.com/photos/charliexia/2076305848/

http://flickr.com/photos/charliexia/sets/72157603269513894/

Makes me want to get the roll film out to get images like these! Then again, his 4X5 images aren't too shabby either;)

http://flickr.com/photos/charliexia/tags/cambowide580/

[Patrik Roseen]

I use all the movements there are. I do lack forward front tilt on my Linhof Technika III (It's done by dropping the bed and then doing a front backward tilt instead).

Getting everything in focus is not the only reason to use tilt and swing. It's also used to select what should be in focus and what should not.
selective focus (http://gallery55.org/lfgallery/index.php?action=showpic&cat=2&pic=17)

[audioexcels]

I use all the movements there are. I do lack forward front tilt on my Linhof Technika III (It's done by dropping the bed and then doing a front backward tilt instead).

Getting everything in focus is not the only reason to use tilt and swing. It's also used to select what should be in focus and what should not.
selective focus (http://gallery55.org/lfgallery/index.php?action=showpic&cat=2&pic=17)

Delicious photo. So on this shot, what exactly did you need (movements) to make this one? It is interesting to me because it is just this old bike and very little context around it, but it is very impacting. I think it would have been perfect with a slight bit more light on the left side to illuminate the bike's handle, and to somehow blur out that left side behind the handle (while illuminating it at the same time). Hard to explain, but a tad bit more light on that left side and I think it would have been perfect, though just as it is, it's really amazing.

[David Karp]

I used all movements possible with my monorail when doing landscapes. Primarily rise and fall, followed in order by front and rear tilt, front swing, rear swing. I use shift a lot too.

When using my Crown Graphic, I rarely even use the shift. This can be limiting, and often forces the use of smaller f/stops.

I am very happy with all of the movements in my 4x5 Walker Titan SF. I would not have purchased a field camera that did not offer similar movements.

[Bule]

Architectural work is very demanding of movements, as is table top studio work. In fact, if table top work can be described as photographing a box on a table, architectural interiors can be said to be photographing the same box from the inside, in terms of movements required. I think the use of movements is often determined by the photographer's familiarity with them, and how they can contribute to their imaging. It all boils down to the creative use of the tools at hand, and the limitations inherent in those tools.

[David Karp]

When using my Crown Graphic, I rarely even use the shift. This can be limiting, and often forces the use of smaller f/stops.

Oops. I should have said rise instead of shift.

[Patrik Roseen]

Delicious photo. So on this shot, what exactly did you need (movements) to make this one? It is interesting to me because it is just this old bike and very little context around it, but it is very impacting. I think it would have been perfect with a slight bit more light on the left side to illuminate the bike's handle, and to somehow blur out that left side behind the handle (while illuminating it at the same time). Hard to explain, but a tad bit more light on that left side and I think it would have been perfect, though just as it is, it's really amazing.

Thanks for the kind words!
The setup is very simple actually with front and rear swings to have the plane of focus stretch in line with the bicycle. There is also some tilt applied so that the plane of focus leans forward so to speak ( i.e. it's not vertical). The photo is shot wide open with short DoF as can be seen on the handle, the seat and the back of the bike. Combining swing and short DoF is often used in advertizing photography to make things look as if they move although they are standing still.

Here is another one with swing only.
Using swing and short DoF (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4270615)

[Leonard Evens]

I do mainly architectural photography plus some landscape. I use rise or fall almost always. For landscapes I often use front tilt. I only rarely use swings, but things are pretty flat around here. Of course, in some cases swing is essential, so I would be loathe to give it up.

[audioexcels]

Thanks for the kind words!
The setup is very simple actually with front and rear swings to have the plane of focus stretch in line with the bicycle. There is also some tilt applied so that the plane of focus leans forward so to speak ( i.e. it's not vertical). The photo is shot wide open with short DoF as can be seen on the handle, the seat and the back of the bike. Combining swing and short DoF is often used in advertizing photography to make things look as if they move although they are standing still.

Here is another one with swing only.
Using swing and short DoF (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4270615)

Yeah, it's a wonderful photo. It has this charm and at the same time, an impact that is tough to describe. Easily could have that one blown up and in a gallery.

I think you have it right about swing being used in advertising, though I think it could also be used in an interesting way for architecture/sreet/etc. photography because you can create a photo that with a very quick glance, looks quite natural and nice, but when focusing on it, makes your head go a little crazy because of the way the photographer tweaked the planes of focus to create this effect.

Out of curiousity, what lens was used for the image to enable you to shoot it wide open?

[JPlomley]

Here is an example of rear swing with the focus plane added for illustration. I measured the focus spread around this plane and determined f/32.7 was required for adequate DOF. Without swing, this image would not have been possible.

Velvia 50
15 sec @ f/32.7
Rodenstock 135mm APO Sironar-S with Singh-Ray Warm Tone polarizer

The print looks soooo much better than the web posting! I had to use a JPEB quality level of three (I think its the added focus plane line that bumped up the file size)

I would say I use swing for less than 10% of my images, and the remainder an even split between front axial tilt (geared MicroOrbix) when using telephoto's and rear base tilt when using my 55/75/90 mm lenses (I enjoy the exaggerated foreground perspective of the latter technique when using wide angles).

[audioexcels]

Here is an example of rear swing with the focus plane added for illustration. I measured the focus spread around this plane and determined f/32.7 was required for adequate DOF. Without swing, this image would not have been possible.

Velvia 50
15 sec @ f/32.7
Rodenstock 135mm APO Sironar-S with Singh-Ray Warm Tone polarizer

The print looks soooo much better than the web posting! I had to use a JPEB quality level of three (I think its the added focus plane line that bumped up the file size)

I would say I use swing for less than 10% of my images, and the remainder an even split between front axial tilt (geared MicroOrbix) when using telephoto's and rear base tilt when using my 55/75/90 mm lenses (I enjoy the exaggerated foreground perspective of the latter technique when using wide angles).


Geez...love these web images that do not do justice to the real thing, but look well, a million times more detailed/sharp/beautiful colors, you name it than anything I have seen with other web images...this one is sensational.

How do you have your images developed? I know that you have the lab run the scans, but curious about the processing part of it.

It really seizes to amaze me (kinda a backward twist to the expression "never seizes to amaze me") that every LF image that is well done and shown on the web has almost surreal like sharpness to the point that I begin to wonder, how in the world is there so much information that we seem to not see until we see an LF shot...only one reason to have photography as one of our primary passions of life. The "art" of it all is the major aspect, but simply seeing the level of resolution that can display all of nature's finest/minute bits and pieces is astounding.

[JPlomley]

Cheers for the feedback Mike. This image hangs on the wall as a 20x24 print and the level of detail is astounding. I attribute this to the 135 Sironar-S and the fine grain of the emulsion. Velvia is a transparency film requiring E6 processing. This was recorded on Velvia generation 1 rated at ISO 40. The image had to be recorded on an overcast day to keep contrast within the latitude of the film, particularly with the white waterfall in the background. One advantage of living in Montreal is the proximity of VT and NH. If you like waterfalls and lush forests, these states are tought to beat. I would give the edge to NH though, particularly the stretch along the Kankamangus Hwy.

Scanning of this image was on an Imacon 949. It's funny, I had a fellow from the local camera club over the other night for the first time and he saw this image on the wall. He was not aware that I shot LF and his exact statement was , "there is no way that was shot with digital".

You are spot on regarding the ability of LF to record the finest of details. I remember welling up inside when putting my very first LF chromes on the light table. I had finally found the utopia of photography.

[Ken Lee]

"I had finally found the utopia of photography."

Amen to that !

Here's one with a little bit of swing, tilt, and shift.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/B116a.jpg
Sinar P, 150mm Braunschweig Heliar, TMY, Pyrocat HD

[JPlomley]

Beautiful Ken. Soft just where it needs to be with "gentle" tones. An image with very tactile qualities.

[Riverman]

I've resurrected this thread after a tilt/swing "Eureka" moment this afternoon. I'm a newcomer to LF and have so far shot fewer than a dozen simple landscapes. Today I decided to set up a cereal box on the kitchen table at various angles and try to focus on one face of the box, using tilt and swing to find the right plane and keep everything sharp with the lens wide open.

It was a really helpful exercise and I've now got a much better idea of how I could use these movements in the field. To any other LF novices out there - I highly recommend some table top shooting. The following youtube clip is really helpful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR4m70xr9mE

[Nathan Potter]

You know this whole terminology thing has bugged me for 40 years. I learned to use a large format camera kinda in complete isolation. Never read a book but just kind of worked out what the movements would do using my first 5X7 antique given to me by, amazingly, "Joe the plummer" (not the one of recent fame). So I always called swing that function which resembled a swing - that is angling things vertically. So then I assumed tilt was a tilting from left to right. All this made perfect sense. And then some years later I discovered that the rest of the LF world had the terminology all wrong.

So my question is: When and how did the rest of the world get this terminology so wrong?

[bspeed]

You know this whole terminology thing has bugged me for 40 years. I learned to use a large format camera kinda in complete isolation. Never read a book but just kind of worked out what the movements would do using my first 5X7 antique given to me by, amazingly, "Joe the plummer" (not the one of recent fame). So I always called swing that function which resembled a swing - that is angling things vertically. So then I assumed tilt was a tilting from left to right. All this made perfect sense. And then some years later I discovered that the rest of the LF world had the terminology all wrong.

So my question is: When and how did the rest of the world get this terminology so wrong?

From Playing Pinball machines between shoots! bzzztt "TILT" bzzzzt GAME OVER !

[Dave Jeffery]

I'll stick with the present standards and terminology. I don't want to be referred to as the guy that swings both ways.

[BradS]

You know this whole terminology thing has bugged me for 40 years. I learned to use a large format camera kinda in complete isolation. Never read a book but just kind of worked out what the movements would do using my first 5X7 antique given to me by, amazingly, "Joe the plummer" (not the one of recent fame). So I always called swing that function which resembled a swing - that is angling things vertically. So then I assumed tilt was a tilting from left to right. All this made perfect sense. And then some years later I discovered that the rest of the LF world had the terminology all wrong.

So my question is: When and how did the rest of the world get this terminology so wrong?

Doors swing in the wind...and, Don Quixote tilted at wind mills. So, you see, it is a literary problem.

[bglick]

Great responses....A few general comments regarding movements.

Of course, the obvious one is front rise, or rear fall, to push the scene further away from you....instead of raising the camera higher to push the nears further away. Pretty non destructive and often very useful. This probably represents 90% of the movements used on a view camera, just guessin...

As for tilt, on both the X and Y axis... (known as tilt and swing), you got some good pix above of where these applications make sense. However, most all situations where this makes sense is where you have relatively near subjects. If the subjects are not near to the camera (near is a relative term based on fl), most often, stopping down is the simplest and often the most effective method. Of course, there is the rare exception when the subject plane can potentially lie right on the focus plane, such as shooting a beach, from the tripod out to the ocean, a perfect application where the two planes align with virtually NO parts of the subject outside the focal plane. Under this scenario, you have a noticeably sharper image.

But when this is not the case, and the two planes do not mate so perfect, such as taller objects in the foreground, now you are confronted with straight DOF (stopping down) or using tilt (on either axis). What is sometimes forgotten is, when extreme tilt is used, you have reduced yourself to using the worst part of the image circle, often negating any potential sharpness gains by getting the focal plane better aligned to the subject plane.

So, the answer is not always so cut n dry as how effective the use of tilts are.... in landscapes, clearly front rise, front tilt dominate. Swings can be tricky and often require a greater degree of movement. The higher the tilt angle, the more aberations the lens will project to film...lenses are optimized to be used in one position, square to the film plane.... when you tilt them, they haver compromised the optics.

Also, in 810, extreme movements are often difficult as you run out of image circle...