How would you focus this Sierra Redwood?

[Heroique]

I was in haste when I composed this Sierra Redwood – and I somewhat botched the focus.

But I do like the composition. My plan is to return to the same spot with greater leisure – and by applying any wisdom you can offer – get the focus right this time, while meeting a few additional “aims” I’ve listed below.

Please help me with your suggestions! ;)

It’s a rather difficult shot – the tree’s giant limb is much more dramatically foreshortened than the photo makes apparent. That’s the main problem.

My tripod is about 8 or 10 feet away from the trunk – rather close, but limbs behind me prevented any additional steps backward. A crowded situation. I even used rope to gently pull-back other limbs from the camera’s view. The giant limb (where its top edge meets trunk) is about 5 or 6 feet high!

Alas, I didn’t record camera movements – I do remember using a bit of front fall & slight front swing (left or right, I can’t recall). That was to bring trunk & giant limb into focus, but the same movements, I’m pretty sure, pulled the photo’s lower-left foreground & upper upper-right limbs out of focus.

My key aims:
1) Preserve this composition/perspective
2) Return when overcast (to eliminate sunspots/bright background)
3) The difficult part: focus the entire trunk, all limbs, plus the foreground
4) Ideally, I’d like the background forest to be (slightly) out of focus, for a portrait effect, but it’s not necessary.

Tachi 4x5
Schneider XL 110mm/5.6 (my widest lens)
Tmax-100
½ sec. @ f/22
Epson 4990/Epson Scan

[r.e.]

Are you sure that you want to shoot this in overcast conditions and eliminate play of light?

I'll say one thing, this photograph is going to turn a few heads. Reminds me of certain examples of pre-Columbian art.

[ic-racer]

Tilts, etc always reduce DOF to some extent. I'd keep things relatively straight. Then use the focusing equation, putting the focal point at the half-way-point between the edge of the trunk and the close part of the limb. Probably around f64.

[Daniel_Buck]

I would to a tad bit of front swing like you mentioned, but not alot! you may only need a degree or two! When you did the swing, did you check the glass with a loupe? Guessing the correct amount of swing/tilt without a loup will probably be very difficult without visually checking with a loupe.

You mentioned that you botched the focus, in what way? I would sit there for a few short minutes and loupe the main trunk and the end of the tree limb as you swing the front standard, until you get them both good. Then stop down and check again if it's bright enough to check at f22 or so :) Maybe stopping to f32 or even smaller might be necessary (or if you are unsure), but your background will probably not be very defocused at that point.

I would agree with you wanting to come back with overcast sky (or late in the day with no direct light) Trees is a favorite subject of mine, and my favorite light for trees is overcast or late in the day with no direct light. I like the subtle contrast and tones that I can get out of the flat lighting. Might not be for everyone, but that's usually what I end up preferring. :)

These two as an example of some trees on overcast days:

http://www.buckshotsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/4x5_mulholland_05.jpg

http://www.buckshotsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/4x5_mulholland_05.jpg

[Heroique]

[...] You mentioned that you botched the focus, in what way? [...]

It's not easy to see in the screen image, but becomes apparent (and distracting) in the 8x10 print.

Here are two crops that might help:

Crop #1 is from photo's lower left: It gradually goes from blurry to sharp.

Crop #2 is from lower right: It stayed in focus.

The same thing happened in the original photo's upper corners, except in reverse. :confused:

[Daniel_Buck]

I'd say maybe to much swing? How does the branch look, was the entire branch in focus?

The upper corners were reversed? Hm... I would guess that you don't need to do any tilting for this shot, just swing.

[Heroique]

[...] How does the branch look, was the entire branch in focus? [...]

Yes, the big branch stayed in focus, all the way to the top. :)

But the branches in upper right go blurry. (Just the reverse of the ground below.)

Here are two more quick crops...

I should stress the big branch is flying over my head more than it appears in the photo.

[vinny]

from what you describe, I'd say f22 wouldn't work no matter what. I'd say f45 would be more appropriate along with some swing.

[cowanw]

If you have swing and the opposite top and bottom are off focus, do you have some inadvertant tilt as well putting the line of focus on a diagonal from Upper left to lower right?
Regards
Bill

[Bill_1856]

I don't see anything wrong with what you've got now.

[Kirk Keyes]

I'd forget swing and measure the near/far focus, determine the focus spread, and then set the f/stop to the required stop to get sufficent depth of field to get it all in focus. Forget about anything behind the tree being in focus.

[rdenney]

If you used a left swing to shift the focus plane to share the plane of the big branch, then the depth of field will be a wedge that will be narrower where it is closer to the camera and wider where it is further.

I might have experimented with a bit of back tilt in addition to the left swing, just to see if it made it easier to sweep up everything into the depth of field. It probably wouldn't have done any good. But in the end, I'm thinking you'll need at least f/45. This is an example where depth of field trumps diffraction or the so-called "sweet spot"--as it always does. Even then, sometimes a visualization proves to be unattainable, and you have to make different choices.

Rick "who tries to keep important details all on one plane" Denney

[Bruce Watson]

These are the most difficult shots to get right IMHO. It takes an interesting kind of finesse. What works for me (and I realize my mind works differently than most) is to visualize where I want the plane of exact focus to be, then work to create that with camera movements. I don't think in terms of DOF, but rather in terms of where exactly I want that plane. I save DOF considerations for last, and use that to tie it all together.

For a shot like this it's often a delicate compromise. You can't do it all with tilt and/or swing because of the problems you've already found. So you have to use just enough tilt (but no more), and just enough swing (but no more), with enough stopping down. What makes it a delicate compromise is the defining of the concept of "enough".

What I would probably do in this case is to first level and plumb the film plane (I'm not at all a fan of keystoning). Then focus on the near surface of the major trunk. Use just a touch of tilt (because the surface of the trunk where it intersects the ground is closer to you than it is at the top of the frame), then just enough swing to help pull the close end of the major limb into focus -- not completely into focus, just closer than no swing at all.

Then tie it all into acceptable focus by stopping down. With such a 3D subject like this you most likely won't be able to shoot at f/22. Maybe f/32 if you're lucky, maybe f/45. For these, I'd bracket -- not exposure, but f-stop. It's just darned difficult to judge what's in and out of acceptable focus on the ground glass when stopped down. So burn a few sheets of film and see it on the light table.

Expect to spend some time looking at the trade offs between focus, swing, and f-stop. For example, you may find that you can move focus forward a bit and back off of swing a bit -- that kind of thing.

It may take you a good long time to set up on this shot (I've spent 45 minutes to an hour and a half setting up on similar shots). And you may have to come back to the scene over and over and over until you get it just right. I've spent six years on a similar shot and I think I got close this last spring. Dedication may pay off. Or it may not. But the process is fun and challenging either way.

[Vaughn]

I would close the lens all the way down next time.

No swing -- anything you gain on the branch coming out on the left you will lose on the near branch in the upper right (and behind the big branch on the left). No tilt -- the branch in the upper left is as close as the ground along the bottom edge of the image.

So, find the point 1/3 of the way in, close it all the way down and go for it. Just a matter of deciding on the light you want. The sunlight is nice feel to it. The timing is difficult, but the best is an partly cloudy day, and you make your exposure just as the sun is being blocked by a cloud. The effect of a sunny day, but muted slightly as if on a overcast day.

Vaughn

[Jim Ewins]

Shoot small segments, scan & stich in photoshop

[Doremus Scudder]

OK; here goes with my approach.

First, you should realize that there are some scenes that simply do not lend themselves well to movements. You may have one here.

Since you don't want keystoning, back tilts are out. Front tilts will give you problems if objects top and bottom are the same distance from the camera (branch and ground). If, for example, the branch at the top left corner is exactly as close as the ground bottom right, tilts will just throw something out of focus. Also, in this situation, i.e. similar distances left and right (even though one is top and one is bottom), swings will not work.

If any movements will help, they will be very small. One method I use to determine if movements can be used is to simply "measure" the relative distances of everything you want in focus using the camera. I would start with close focus. Check top left and bottom right and see which is closer. If indeed the top right is a bit closer, you could apply a little swing till they both focus in the same plane. Repeat with other bottom to top and left to right near "measurements" and apply movements till you have the smallest difference in focus spread between the nearest objects. (If elements in the scene are equidistant, you simply cannot apply movements without throwing something more out of focus than zero position would render it. In that case, leave the camera zeroed and proceed with determining the focus spread). Note which object is the nearest, i.e., requires the closest focus.

Now "measure" the farthest objects in the scene. Find the farthest focus, i.e., the object that requires the smallest bellows draw. Note that if you have applied some movements, this might not be the object actually farthest from the camera.

Now identify the focus spread between near and far (it helps to have a mm scale on the camera bed/rail). This is where things can get tricky. Your job is to reduce the focus spread to the minimum using the movements available. Your camera should be set up for the "foreground plane" already. Play with the movements, using your knowledge of how the foreground and background planes interact, and tweak the initial set-up to get minimum focus spread. If there are extreme distances between a near and far object (e.g., the protruding branch and the distant trees/branches behind it), you may find that moving back closer to zero position gives you a smaller focus spread. Be patient. Sometimes I have to start over completely with step one.

Once you have reached the absolute minimum focus spread you will want to position the focus in the middle exactly between both extremes and use the f-stop that will get you the optimum sharpness. Look here for a discussion of this: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html

If you don't want to dig through all that right now, you can just bracket f-stops as suggested above. Despite all the warnings about diffraction, I would not hesitate to use as small as f.64 and see if it works. I find that diffraction effects are fairly invisible in prints from 4x5 negatives up to 11x14 in size.

FWIW, here are the f-stops I use for larger focus spreads:

Focus spread -- f-stop
5mm -- f.45
6mm -- f.45 1/3
7mm -- f.45 1/2
8mm -- f.45 2/3
9-11mm -- f.64

I don't imagine you will have a problem with overly-large focus spreads with the 110mm. However, if you do then you may find it more effective to reach for a shorter lens and plan on cropping the final image somewhat. (I know you said this was your shortest (maybe you could get your hands on a 90mm or even a 75mm...) but the technique works well when starting with a longer lens.)

Sure, we all like to use as much of the frame as possible, but it is amazing what a step shorter will do for dof.

Have fun and good luck,

[Heroique]

[...] And you may have to come back to the scene over and over and over until you get it just right. I've spent six years on a similar shot and I think I got close this last spring. [...]


[...] Be patient. Sometimes I have to start over completely with step one. […]

Yes, haste was my principal failing here – an unpardonable sin in the LF world!

Thanks to all the practical suggestions, I’m able to return to this shot with a comprehensive set of field notes.

The notes – if distilled – might read: “f/45-64 and be there” for an hour – or two, and identify the best plane of focus, minimizing the focus spread w/ tiny (experimental) applications of front tilts/swings. And bracket.

Additional comments for and against the dappled sunlight leave me unsettled on that issue. I think I’m still leaning toward softer lighting.

[wfwhitaker]

...I'll say one thing, this photograph is going to turn a few heads. Reminds me of certain examples of pre-Columbian art.

I thought I was the only one with a "fertile" imagination!

[Bruce Watson]

Additional comments for and against the dappled sunlight leave me unsettled on that issue. I think I’m still leaning toward softer lighting.

When in doubt, do it both ways. See for yourself which works best for you. You may surprise yourself.

[Lenny Eiger]

Lots of good comments. I'll add: Get rid of the wide angle lens. Take a step or two back and use a normal lens. I like the idea of a light back tilt to move the plane of focus - very slight. Anything you do to adjust focus means you lose it somewhere else. Finally, close the damn lens down. Get some depth of field. Maybe f64 or f128. With the amount of film you are using with a 4x5, you trump any resolution concerns you might have.

A lot has been said about resolution. Personally, I don't care about things being super-critically sharp. I care much more about depth of field. I think there is way too much worry about resolution - and it doesn't pay off. So, you can take my comments with that bias in mind....

Lenny

[mdd99]

Seems pretty simple to me:
* Slight swing from left to right to ensure the trees are in focus--they are the critical elements.
* Then set the focus halfway between near and far and close down until all is acceptably sharp. I'm guessing you'll need to close down to f/45.

[Ed Richards]

1) how far can you move back? The farther you can move, the longer the lens you can use, the less the wide angle distortion. Bruce is right on with bracketing the F-stop. Even if it gets a little less sharp, you can tune that up a lot with USM because there is no critical fine detail.

2) rethink the composition - get right under the branch, use a very wide lens, and tilt the camera up! Give the view a real sense of the looming size of the trees.:-)

[Steve Sherman]

I was in haste when I composed this Sierra Redwood – and I somewhat botched the focus.

But I do like the composition. My plan is to return to the same spot with greater leisure – and by applying any wisdom you can offer – get the focus right this time, while meeting a few additional “aims” I’ve listed below.

Please help me with your suggestions! ;)

It’s a rather difficult shot – the tree’s giant limb is much more dramatically foreshortened than the photo makes apparent. That’s the main problem.

My tripod is about 8 or 10 feet away from the trunk – rather close, but limbs behind me prevented any additional steps backward. A crowded situation. I even used rope to gently pull-back other limbs from the camera’s view. The giant limb (where its top edge meets trunk) is about 5 or 6 feet high!

Alas, I didn’t record camera movements – I do remember using a bit of front fall & slight front swing (left or right, I can’t recall). That was to bring trunk & giant limb into focus, but the same movements, I’m pretty sure, pulled the photo’s lower-left foreground & upper upper-right limbs out of focus.

My key aims:
1) Preserve this composition/perspective
2) Return when overcast (to eliminate sunspots/bright background)
3) The difficult part: focus the entire trunk, all limbs, plus the foreground
4) Ideally, I’d like the background forest to be (slightly) out of focus, for a portrait effect, but it’s not necessary.

Tachi 4x5
Schneider XL 110mm/5.6 (my widest lens)
Tmax-100
½ sec. @ f/22
Epson 4990/Epson Scan

Determine your composition in a 3D box. If your box is shaped like a square cube, your only recourse is f stops for depth of filed. If your composition looks at all like a rectangular cube than you swing the back in the SAME direction as the long side of rectangle. Always try to use rear movement to preserve the lens image circle.

You can always back up just a bit and crop a bit when enlarging.

Movements with a view camera are relatively slight, pay no attention to advertisements of View camera which resemble a twisted accordion. The shorter the lens the less you'll notice camera movements.

Cheers

[Chuck P.]

Tachi 4x5
Schneider XL 110mm/5.6 (my widest lens)
Tmax-100
½ sec. @ f/22
Epson 4990/Epson Scan

What about keeping the lens/film planes parallel but use the hyperfocal distance with your 110mm lens at f/32? This would give a HF distance of about 12 feet, therefore acceptable sharpness from 6 feet to infinity.

f/45: HF = 9 feet, sharpness from 4.5 to infinity
f/64: HF = 6 feet, sharpness from 3 feet to infinity

Just a thought.