PDA

View Full Version : Asymmetrical Movements - Pro & Con



Greg Liscio
21-Jun-2009, 04:30
Opinions please on the value (or not) of asymmetrical tilt movements, especially when compared to a base/center tilt combination. Also asymmetrical swing compared to standard swing.

Thank you.

Joanna Carter
21-Jun-2009, 05:49
Opinions please on the value (or not) of asymmetrical tilt movements, especially when compared to a base/center tilt combination. Also asymmetrical swing compared to standard swing.
I, personally, cannot see any advantage in asymmetric tilts, apart from a slight time-saving when photographing non-architectural subjects. Also being able to use asymmetric movements really depends on whether or not you have anything in your plane of focus that falls easily on the asymmetric line.

I have an Ebony SV45Te which has both axis and base tilts and I find that I can focus most scenes in less than 30 seconds. I would only ever use back movements in very rare circumstances and usually use front axis tilt for the majority of images that require any tilt.

I suppose, if you have to have asymmetric movements, then swing is more useful than tilt but, since I rarely need to use swing, it doesn't really concern me.

Frank Petronio
21-Jun-2009, 05:54
I don't get it either, unless I did studio shots of multiple wine bottles from a high vantage point I have a hard time coming up with situations where they would make a difference? Or at least so far, I've only been shooting large format 25 years, I'm a newb.

If I was buying a luxury camera I'd go for the Arca's micro-metrix orbitz stuff, those little geared movements seem a lot more useful.

Leonard Evens
21-Jun-2009, 08:32
I agree that an asymmetric tilt is only helpful if there is something of interest on the line that stays fixed. My Toho FC-45X has only base tilt but has axial swing. In either case, I use the near far method to set the plane of exact focus. I make an initial guess, usually about 5 degrees. I choose two points, a near point and far point I want in that plane, focus on the far point and then focus on the near point. If I have to increase the distance between the standards in doing so, I increase the tilt (swing) and if I have to decrease the distance between the standards, I decrease the tilt (swing). Usually at most three iterations of this procedure result in both points being simultaneously in focus, and this usually takes between 30 seconds and one minute.

Steve Hamley
21-Jun-2009, 17:40
I'll offer the "dissenting opinion". I like and use the asymmetric rear movements on the Ebony field cameras and IMO they're quite useful.

Richard Sexton has a nice article on asymmetric movements on the Ebony website:

http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam.html

I've found asymmetric movements most useful when setting up a near-far shot in rapidly changing light when seconds can matter - most of us know that "prime time" during a sunset or sunrise can literally be a minute or less. Usually the quick two-step process is all I need: focus on the swing/tilt line, then swing or tilt the rest of the composition into focus.

Whether they're worth what Ebony charges for them is up to you. You can of course set the back at the exact same angle regardless of whether the movements are asymmetric or symmetric. I think they are but there are others that don't. And obviously (as far as the Ebonys go) if you don't use rear movements a lot then paying extra for a rarely used feature is questionable.

And Sinar apparently think asymmetric movements are a good thing as do may Sinar users.

Cheers, Steve

Emmanuel BIGLER
22-Jun-2009, 00:13
Hello from the Old World

I remember that a very similar issue was raised on the UK Large Format Forum. I shall not disclose who started the subject ;-)
The discussion, besides the question of asymmetric movements, raised some interesting (IMHO) remarks & developments.
http://www.lf-photo.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=819&highlight=asymmetric

sotto voce : I'll never be allowed to disclose here the meaning of "Pro & Con" in the French Photographic community ;-)

timparkin
22-Jun-2009, 00:19
I'll offer the "dissenting opinion". I like and use the asymmetric rear movements on the Ebony field cameras and IMO they're quite useful.

Richard Sexton has a nice article on asymmetric movements on the Ebony website:

http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam.html

I've found asymmetric movements most useful when setting up a near-far shot in rapidly changing light when seconds can matter - most of us know that "prime time" during a sunset or sunrise can literally be a minute or less. Usually the quick two-step process is all I need: focus on the swing/tilt line, then swing or tilt the rest of the composition into focus.

Whether they're worth what Ebony charges for them is up to you. You can of course set the back at the exact same angle regardless of whether the movements are asymmetric or symmetric. I think they are but there are others that don't. And obviously (as far as the Ebonys go) if you don't use rear movements a lot then paying extra for a rarely used feature is questionable.

And Sinar apparently think asymmetric movements are a good thing as do may Sinar users.

Cheers, Steve

Another vote for assymetric tilt. As far as I am concerned it reduces the number of iterations to one is so many cases as to be a useful feature. Yes it doesn't work quite so well in conditions where you don't have a feature you want in focus on the pivot line so it becomes 'as good as' centre/base tilt at that point. I would say about 6/10 shots let me use the assymetric tilt so 60% of the time I'm quicker using it than I would be without it.

Would I sacrifice it? Only to reduce weight.. If I were after a lightweight kit I would buy an Ebony 45S with only centre tilt and no swing on the back standard.

Tim

joolsb
22-Jun-2009, 01:38
I wonder if the naysayers are simply jealous? ;)

Anyway, I bought my 45SU after seeing Joe Cornish demonstrate the advantage of asymmetric tilts on a workshop. He calls it 'the nearest thing to autofocus for view cameras' and he's not wrong. There have not been many occasions when I haven't been able to use it. In fact, it makes life so easy that there's a danger of using it all the time - even when front-tilt would be preferable. :eek: :)

Emmanuel BIGLER
22-Jun-2009, 02:03
the naysayers

As a non-native English speaker, one of the best reference I know about "naysayers" is a quotation credited to the famous physicist C.H. Townes, co-inventor of the laser :

Nothing stops "naysayers" like a working device

W. E. Lamb, W. P. Schleich, M. O. Scully, C. H. Townes, "Laser physics: Quantum controversy in action", Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S263-S273 (1999)
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v71/i2/pS263_1

Dave Jeffery
22-Jun-2009, 02:04
"I would say about 6/10 shots let me use the assymetric tilt so 60% of the time I'm quicker using it than I would be without it."

Ditto I like having the option of focusing in two steps.

Dave Jeffery
22-Jun-2009, 02:20
When I was initially getting used to focusing with the rear frame, the top of the frame would often easily pop into the zero positon and I would end up fiddling with it more than necessary. Now I focus on the far position of the plane of focus that falls on the ground glass line, tension the adjustment knob to add a fair amount of resitance to the movement, and then squeeze the top of the frame forward until the focus is achieved. This helps me avoid moving past the plane of focus as easily and speeds up focusing a lot.
I always pull the top of the frame back well past where I think it will end up so the frame movement only goes in one direction. The squeezing together of the wood frame and the titanium upright will become natural. This technique increased my chances of focusing quickly in two steps by a huge margin and eliminated a lot of the back and forth over the focus line that I used to do.

I hope this helps for anyone new to using an Ebony.

Rakesh Malik
22-Jun-2009, 09:22
I've tried cameras with and ones without asymmetric tilts/swings, and my conclusion is that it's definitely convenient. The question isn't whether or not it works, because obviously it does, the question really is whether or not the convenience is enough to justify the price tag.

Bjorn Nilsson
22-Jun-2009, 10:01
For me it's a matter of convenience too. While at home, I always use my Sinar P back for 4x5" (and occational 5x7"), but when going away from home (and away from the car) I prefer the lighter weight of the F2. As I easily can compare the two different systems side by side, I really like the asymmetric system better and I work much faster with it. Even though it's not always easy to find a "decent" line around which to tilt/swing, it's usually possible to shift the back frame to where that line appears and then shift back when the desired angle is found.

//Björn

timparkin
22-Jun-2009, 11:11
For me it's a matter of convenience too. While at home, I always use my Sinar P back for 4x5" (and occational 5x7"), but when going away from home (and away from the car) I prefer the lighter weight of the F2. As I easily can compare the two different systems side by side, I really like the asymmetric system better and I work much faster with it. Even though it's not always easy to find a "decent" line around which to tilt/swing, it's usually possible to shift the back frame to where that line appears and then shift back when the desired angle is found.

//Björn

I was a little sceptical about this procedue at first (using rise to move the pivot line to somewhere useful) however, after working out the maths (ish) I realised that this will work well for most tilts except for where the hinge line is very close to the camera (i.e. if you are working close to the ground for instance).

One of the other advantages of the set up of the 45SU is that you can 'squeeze' very small tilts to get extra accuracy. On the picture below you can put your thumb on A and roll your finger around B, pushing the back standard back and forth. Nothing really special but it's nice to have that control. I imagine other camera users havetheir own tricks (apart from Arca Orbix users - the buggers)..

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z248/timparkin/ebonycamera.jpg

aduncanson
22-Jun-2009, 12:09
I was baffled by asymmetrical tilts for a long time until somebody eventually demonstrated the Sinar system to me and then I was greatly impressed.

After I had gathered significant experience using a Cambo monorail with axis tilts, I came to the conclusion that the asymmetrical tilts were mostly justified for high production rate situations where labor and studio costs demanded ultimate throughput. For my hobbyist purposes they constituted an unnecessary expense and unnecessary weight.

I recently switched to a Canham Traditional 5x7 and the change to base tilts did not even occur to me. I find that I can refocus as I tilt and so keep the first point in focus as I bring in the second point by tilting. Maybe I am deluding myself in that, but any residual iterations required are just part of using fine equipment to interact with the image in the traditional photography process that I enjoy.

Two final points, 1) finding the necessary the tilts and swings is much easier on larger formats where seeing the changes as you make them is easier and 2) using a 4X clip-on magnifier over my reading glasses helps me to stay aware of the entire screen far better than a traditional 4X loupe.

Or I might just be bitter with envy.

Dave Jeffery
22-Jun-2009, 13:00
I use Tim’s method to fine focus if I tilt too far forward on my initial squeezing of the frame toward the focus line.

At the top and bottom of the right side of the ground glass frame there are two pieces of wood that protrude to help the film holder slip in and I use the top one for focusing. I tilt the top of the frame back behind the line of focus, set the distant focus on the 1/3 line at the bottom of the ground glass, tension the knob, and put my thumb behind the top extending piece of wood on the ground glass holder, and put my forefinger along the front of the rear standard at point B in Tim’s picture, and then sqeeze the two together slowly until I hit the plane of focus. The top piece of wood feels like it was designed as a tab to press on with the thumb. I’m getting a lot better at hitting the line of focus going forward with the rear frame which really speeds up focusing and makes it a fast two step process. If I go past the line then I use the method Tim mentions.

For me the idea is to hit the plane of focus in two steps with no time spent on extra iterations /focusing which is a time saver when the light is changing.

Ed Richards
22-Jun-2009, 21:26
Can you use these with architecture? In my simplistic understanding, I thought to keep buildings square, you had to keep the back square and do tilts and swings with the front. Am I missing something?

Joanna Carter
23-Jun-2009, 00:29
Can you use these with architecture? In my simplistic understanding, I thought to keep buildings square, you had to keep the back square and do tilts and swings with the front. Am I missing something?
Nope, if you are interested in architecture then you can only use asymmetric swings, with resulting change in proportions between near and far points of the building.

Stephen Lewis
23-Jun-2009, 03:48
Having used both systems, I think this question is largely about your preferred working methods. Asymmetric movements can save time in the field at the expense of cost and weight.

When comparing the systems, I looked at how infrequently I used the rear standard for aligning the planes, how quickly I can do two or three iterations needed when I do (with the normal movements), and how infrequently my near point actually fell on the line on the screen. I concluded that asymmetric movements were not worth the extra cost and weight. It's surprising how quickly the iterations can be done, and, in the overall time spent setting the composition, I think the time saved by asymmetric movements was nominal.

Having said that, many of my photographer friends swear by asymmetric movements, and wouldn't do without them. As I said, it's about your preferred working method.

Bjorn Nilsson
23-Jun-2009, 08:18
Can you use these with architecture? In my simplistic understanding, I thought to keep buildings square, you had to keep the back square and do tilts and swings with the front. Am I missing something?

In this case it seems to depend on which camera you're using. It seems like most are discussing the Ebony U-series cameras, which I don't have any experience of. My experience lies with Sinar P and P2 cameras. (At the moment "technically" I got a Sinar C camera, which is a P back with an F front, for e.g. ligther weight.)
Heres's what I normally do whenever I dont want houses looking like pyramids or whatever. (Please note that the whole procedure including finding and transfering the correct angle for both tilt and swing takes less time than it takes to write this part down.)
Here goes: With the camera back in the position I want it (framing etc.) I see to that the tilt (or swing) line is at e.g. the top of the house wall. I then adjust the tilt until the whole wall is sharp. If I need to swing as well, I do that now too.
I then read the tilt angle and transfer it to the front standart, after which I also transfer the swing angle.
Then I zero the back standart and refocus. Done. (In practice all of this is done within a minute and it's done with precision.)
What's left to do is the usual part of getting everything sharp, but that has nothing to do with asymmetric tilts and swings. Anyhow, that is very easy on the Sinar too.
(As a bynote, this can be done with an F/F1/F2 too, it just takes a bit longer time, as you don't see the picture "snapping into sharpness" in the way you do on a P/P2.)

Last, a thought struck me (ouch, it hurts everytime that happens... :) ). Given the Ebony where you don't have precise scales where you can read and transfer values from back to front, I'd still do the tilt/swing bit and then loosen the ballhead to get the back into a "zero'd" position, i.e. without tapered walls etc. after which I recon some rise/fall and shift will get everything into place. But I think an Ebony-owner will have to confirm that this is possible.

//Björn

Joanna Carter
23-Jun-2009, 11:00
Heres's what I normally do ... With the camera back in the position I want it (framing etc.) I see to that the tilt (or swing) line is at e.g. the top of the house wall. I then adjust the tilt until the whole wall is sharp. If I need to swing as well, I do that now too.
I then read the tilt angle and transfer it to the front standart, after which I also transfer the swing angle.
Then I zero the back standart and refocus. Done. (In practice all of this is done within a minute and it's done with precision.)
What's left to do is the usual part of getting everything sharp, but that has nothing to do with asymmetric tilts and swings.
Hmmm, and that's meant to be simple??? I realise you have scales on the Sinar, something that is not present on the Ebony, but it seems like an awful lot of faffing around when all I have to do is to do about 3 iterations of adjusting front axis tilt and focus to get 95% of my pictures totally in focus.


Given the Ebony where you don't have precise scales where you can read and transfer values from back to front, I'd still do the tilt/swing bit and then loosen the ballhead to get the back into a "zero'd" position, i.e. without tapered walls etc. after which I recon some rise/fall and shift will get everything into place. But I think an Ebony-owner will have to confirm that this is possible.
Of course it's possible, but it's still a lot more work than only working with the front standard. Not forgetting that adjusting the tilt of the camera will move both the hinge point and the angle of the plane of sharp focus, so just what is the real benefit of asymmetric movements???

Bjorn Nilsson
24-Jun-2009, 11:08
Hmmm, and that's meant to be simple??? ...

It's sometimes much harder to describe how somethings done than to just do it. ... and I just have to do this once.

While we're at it. I'm very happy with my decision to (back in the 80'ies) start learning with a Sinar. The scales and gadgets took a lot of guesswork out of the learning experience and I got results more quickly. On the other hand, I find myself using my Hasselblad gear most of the time when I'm outdoors nowadays, which have kind of made me glance at the lightweight Shen Hao's and Chamonix cameras. Those cameras does (of course) lack the asymmetric swing/tilt and also all the scales etc. which I'm used to. But I recon that I've gathered enough experience to "cope". I.e. I'm not saying it's essential to have asymmetric movements on an LF camera, but it's a nice feature which in my way of seeing it makes camera operation quicker.

//Björn

Dave Jeffery
25-Jun-2009, 02:22
I honestly believe that the advantage and best method of using asymmetrical tilts has not been fully taken advantage of by some people.

The Ebony cameras do not have geared movements and I believe these cameras need to be handled with some strength and authority for the time savings of focusing to be more easily achievable, and more evident.

With assymetrical tilts once the far point of focus has been set on the lower marked focusing line on the ground glass, all that needs to be accomplished to set the plane of focus is to set the other point of focus correctly on the upper line marked on the ground glass. There is no need for other rail adjustments as required using base tilts and to quote Joanna there is “ a slight time-saving when photographing non-architectural subjects” I think the amount of time savings depends upon the focusing method used with the Ebony’s specifically.

Unfortunately focusing with an Ebony can be done in a variety of manners which include fiddling around using the “touchy-feely” fiddly manner with little tension set in the adjustment knob, wiggling back and forth behind the line of focus, then adjusting too far in front of the line of focus, then continuing back and forth wasting time with multiple iterations. After one has used this camera for a while it becomes apparent when the plane of focus is coming into fine focus, and there is no need to run past that focus point as it is a known visual setting. I admit that I still go past the line many times as I continue to practice but it is happening less and less, and being able to focus in a couple of quick moves is amazing. It’s a useless waste of time if you set focus on one line and then fiddle fart around at the other line fighting the zero detent of the Ebony.
If you have used the Ebony for a while shooting typical landscapes you have an very good idea of how far back the rear film holder frame typically gets tilted back for the correct focus, and that is very few degrees. If you pre-set the rear tilt angle not too far behind this known line before focusing on the far point, which relates to the lower ground glass line, then little change will happen to the first point of focus when you squeeze in on the second near focus point, which relates with the upper line on the ground glass. If you tension the knob firmly creating good resistance for the movement prior to squeezing in on the upper line of fine focus you will have much less chance of overshooting the plane of focus, and this is most important. When it is time to focus on the upper line then this means grabbing the rear frame, and the titanium upright, and using the POWER of your GRIP to squeeze the two together slowly, smoothly and VERY accurately! You will miss the line many times as you practice but you will become better and better at getting it correct in one smooth fast efficient squeezing motion. There are no gears on this camera so squeezing the movement together when there is a fair amount of resistance is the most refined means to focus IMHO.

One does need to be familiar with the tiny range of fine focus on the ground glass where one needs to STOP as you squeeze forward, but that becomes evident over time. I’m convinced that it is not possible to focus efficiently moving the top of the frame backwards, as the zero detent makes moving the frame back a jerky, jumpy movement since, once the pressure of the spring is overcome, tension is released and the rear frame jumps back a little. Conversely if you tighten the movement and squeeze the frame forward then the movement is consistent and smooth.

IMHO the advantage of asymmetrical tilts is all about squeezing accurately, quickly and smoothly, in one move, onto the second (near) line of focus. I’m not surprised that people might miss this as it probably seems odd to have to focus a camera using some force.

I hope someone else not using this method yet with and Ebony will try this and report back to this forum.

Hope this helps,
All the best everyone!

timparkin
31-Jan-2013, 02:55
I honestly believe that the advantage and best method of using asymmetrical tilts has not been fully taken advantage of by some people.

The Ebony cameras do not have geared movements and I believe these cameras need to be handled with some strength and authority for the time savings of focusing to be more easily achievable, and more evident.

With assymetrical tilts once the far point of focus has been set on the lower marked focusing line on the ground glass, all that needs to be accomplished to set the plane of focus is to set the other point of focus correctly on the upper line marked on the ground glass. There is no need for other rail adjustments as required using base tilts and to quote Joanna there is “ a slight time-saving when photographing non-architectural subjects” I think the amount of time savings depends upon the focusing method used with the Ebony’s specifically.

It's even easier than that as once you've focussed on the lower line you can tilt to get anything in focus anywhere. the upper line is just there if you put the ground glass back in rotated 180 degrees.

Having taught quite a few people how to use technical cameras and been on location with an Ebony 45SU and various other non-asymmetric cameras, the look of amazement on people's faces when they use the Ebony is enough to explain to me the advantages.

It should be said that the more experienced you are at shooting with a large format camera using front tilt, the less the advantage of rear asymmetric tilt. Hence for a very experienced photographer the asymmetric tilt may well have no advantage at all. For the beginner though the time saving is dramatic.

Tim