PDA

View Full Version : How much movement is necessary



Stefan Lungu
28-Oct-2008, 09:06
Hello everybody,

I was just thinking how much movement is needed for shooting buildings. I know, every time someone asks for a camera to shoot architecture, the answer is : as much movement as you can get. Now, to shoot a building without tilting the camera, I have to be far enough so that the building can get complete on the film. Second, since my camera is straight, I would be pointing to "my height" at the base of the building. So, in order to get everything in picture , I need to be able to have a rise of h/2 of my format. That would be 2" for shooting in landscape mode, or 2 1/2" for shooting portrait format on a 4x5. Am I right in assuming these values as good starting points for searching a camera and lenses for this type of application ( I'm not starting searching right away, but would keep an eye on this idea when getting lenses - I first want to shoot LF with what I have and practice some film development myself, so this was simply an exercise more than a desperate cry for help ). Hope you don't mind my little silly beginner thoughts.

Regards, Stefan

mrossano
28-Oct-2008, 13:16
Hopefully, some of the more experienced commercial architectural photographers will chime-in on this one, but I can offer at least some commentary. Some years ago, I spent a fair amount of my free time photographing the exteriors of many older buildings in and around Norfolk, VA. In the course of this endeavor, I used 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 formats. Many of the more interesting structures included old stone churches. I can't recall any cases in portrait orientation requiring more than 2" rise in 4x5, 3" in 5x7 or 4" in 8x10. I think you will find that you rarely achieve the most pleasant composition with the optical axis aligned on the top of the film area, so your h/2 rise is probably more than needed. If you have a reasonably tall tripod, say one that elevates the lens axis to about 6' or better, you will likely have all the rise you need for architectural exteriors within those 2", 3", 4" limits. Interior shots can be trickier, and I don't have significant experience there.

Vaughn
28-Oct-2008, 13:31
I do not do much architecture, but I found myself tilting the camera up, then moving the front and back standards forward so that they were parallel with the building (or tree). Standing back one day and looking at the camera from the side, I finally realized that it was the same as keeping the camera level and using just the front rise. (okay...I can be a bit slow sometimes!)

So if you find a nice camera but it is lacking enough front rise, you can gain the equivilent of front rise easily enough...one just has to have a lens with a big enough image circle to keep the film covered.

Vaughn

Brian Ellis
28-Oct-2008, 13:55
Why don't you want to tilt the camera? The usual technique with a tall building or one you can't get far away from is to aim the camera up towards the top of the building, then tilt the front and back standards forward so that they're parallel with each other and with the building. If that isn't enough then add front rise. Or if your camera lacks the necessary movements just aim the camera up and correct the keystone effect in Photoshop.

Stefan Lungu
28-Oct-2008, 14:22
The idea with the tilted camera and standards to make up for the rise has a name I think, but I can't remember it right now. Anyhow, it is a good idea, even if I was only thinking about using rise. But I was also thinking about the image circle needed, and looking trough the lens data on the parent site of our forum, I noticed something that I found a little strange : while the 210mm lenses have plenty of room for movements, as do the brighter 90mm lenses ( even with uggly big 82m filters - only noticeable exception being the Nikkor 8.0 ), the 150mm lenses tend to have less coverage ( speaking of these as many seem to pick a 90-150-210 lineup as starting point ), and I wondered why that is so. From my experience with 35mm digital, I can do very well with basicaly two lenses 28mm and 100mm, so I will try to find a 90mm after settling a little into LF, but still, I wondered why the image circle of the 150's is so modest ( of course not counting the two wides for 8x10 so staying with the more or less regular 4x5 lenses ).

Stefan

Leonard Evens
28-Oct-2008, 14:58
I regularly do architectural photography, and my camera has limited rise/fall, particularly for short focal length lenses, so I have to deal with problems of this kind on a regular basis.

First let me point out that you often don't need or want the bottom of the building right at the bottom of the picture. You can include some significant part of the foreground, and that reduces the amount of rise you need. Using a short focal length lens, you may still be able to include the entire building in the frame. So you may be exaggerating the amount of rise/fall and lens coverage you need.

Second, you may in some circumstances be able to extend the rise by pointing the camera upward and tilting the standards so they are plumb. You may also be able to do this in addition to using rise. But, in my experience, this doesn't work too well for the short focal length lenses which you are likely to be using since the limit on rise is from the bellows, which ends up in the same stressed position no matter how you go about it.

Third, as someone already noted, you can solve the problem by putting the camera at a higher position. You might even want to investigate the possibility of using a window or roof of a nearby building if you can get permission. Another possibility is after getting as much rise as you can get, pointing the camera up and then getting the sides of the building parallel either by tilting the easel in your enlarger or by correcting digitally if you scan. You will still get a higher quality result than you would using a smaller format camera without movements and doing the same thing.

Fourth, don't expect miracles. There will always be situations where you can't get the entire building in the frame from the available shooting positions. In such cases, there may be creative ways around it if you use your imagination. You would be well advised to get a camera with large rise, capable of using a bag bellows, and wide angle lenses, like the Super Angulon XLs with large image circles. . But if, like me, you end up with something not quite as capable, you may still be able to do creative architectural photography by using your imagination.

Ed Richards
28-Oct-2008, 15:02
Because you are comparing 150mm normal design with 90mm wide. 90mm normals will only cover 2 1/4, and 150mm wides will cover 8x10. 210mm do not need to be wide to cover the larger circle, but that does not get you any benefit in movements because you have to move the lens more to get the same angle change.

Gordon Moat
29-Oct-2008, 11:56
I think if you can find between 30mm and 40mm on the front and rear standards, then you should be able to utilize the maximum image circle of many lenses (or beyond). This same number could be applied to shift, though not all cameras have front and rear shift. Using swing/tilt, you can often create a functionally greater amount of movement range, though often you might run out of coverage prior to running out of movements.

My Shen-Hao HZX45A-II might not seem to have much movement on paper, though when I have my 135mm f5.6 mounted, I can run out of coverage before I run out of movement. Using my 180mm f5.6, I can still get just to the edge of coverage. So basically, other than a few lenses that cover much more than 4x5, I think several other cameras might have more movement than could be used with many lenses.

Ciao!

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