Movements When Shooting Uphill

[dperez]

Hello everyone,

I searched for a similar question in this forum but did not have any luck with the results so I apologize upfront if this is something that has been covered before.

During a recent trip to Joshua Tree I found myself composing a shot looking up a steep hill. The way I approached the shot was to keep the back level, incorporate enough front rise to achieve my desired composition, and then I used the focus check procedure to achieve the desired plane of focus. I added front tilt and it appeared that I got decent results based on my test with Fuji instant film.

My question is would it have been better for me to tilt the back somewhat and then use some front tilt as shown in the image (figure A)? Or was the route I chose the preferred approach (figure B)? Or does it matter? I have noticed that some LF shooters tilt the back up or down when setting up on uphill or downhill shots, sort of like what one would be resigned to do if they had an SLR camera without movements, except they add the front tilt to achieve the plane of focus.

I have always tried to keep the back level and just use rise or fall + front tilt to achieve my desired plane of focus, but I'm not sure if this is the best way, or if there would be an improved approach.

I use an Arca-Swiss 4x5.

Any advice offered would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

-Daniel Perez

[Chuck P.]

The one rule of thumb that I've always heard was that the back should be level if there are verticals in the scene that for which you desire to maintain the proper geometry (i.e., no converging lines). If you have no such requirement for the final image, then I would think incorporating some back tilt is perfectly acceptable. Depending on the subject matter, I would think a little image distortion at the film plane would not be that much of an issue.

[dave_whatever]

If there are no vertical buildings/trees in shot then you've got nothing to gain by slavishly keeping the back vertical.

[Jack Dahlgren]

If there are no vertical buildings/trees in shot then you've got nothing to gain by slavishly keeping the back vertical.

Actually, you do have something to gain or lose by tilting the back. Leaning the top of the back away from the slope will cause the base of the slope to appear larger and the top to appear smaller. The reverse is true with tilting towards the slope. Sometimes one or the other of these effects is wanted. It is up to the photographer to decide.

[dperez]

Thanks Jack, that makes sense. I appreciate the info. I will experiment with this in future compositions.

[aduncanson]

The front rise and forward tilt of the front both tend to run you out of coverage for the top of the hill. If that were a problem then focusing by tilting the rear backwards rather than the front forwards would alleviate it to a degree. Of course, as Jack pointed out, that would reduce the size and emphasis of items at the top of the hill.

[Brian Ellis]

If there are no vertical buildings/trees in shot then you've got nothing to gain by slavishly keeping the back vertical.

Usually that's true with a landscape photograph but not always. It depends on what's in the foreground and what you want the foreground to look like. Tilting the back will distort the foreground. If it's something like a rock or bush you probably don't care, nobody will know exactly what the rock or bush really looked like. In fact you might like the effect of tilting the back backwards, e.g. to make the foreground object look larger than it really is relative to the rest of the scene (to "loom" as Fred Picker used to say). But if it's something you want to keep at its actual relative size and shape - a person would be an extreme example - you'd probably want to keep the back vertical.

[Bruce Watson]

If there are no vertical buildings/trees in shot then you've got nothing to gain by slavishly keeping the back vertical.

"Slavishly" is the correct word here.

But a large part of the LF look IMHO comes from keeping the back level and plumb. With LF we can keep the relationships of objects in the scene "real" in ways that cameras without separation of the film plane and the lens plane, can not. And the results, often, for me anyway, is a viewing experience that's more relaxed and feels more natural -- the absence of keystoning in a group of trees for example. Fixing this kind of distortion removes a distraction from the viewer and lets them see the group of trees for what they are, in the proper relationship to one another. And that, IMHO, is a very good thing.

If that's not your thing, so be it. I'm just sayin' that with LF, we get that choice. What we do with it is up to the individual photographers.

[dperez]

Again thanks to all those who have shared their knowledge. It is much appreciated.

[Robert Hughes]

When shooting uphill, give yourself a little extra vertical. Take account of windage, too...

[mandoman7]

"Slavishly" is the correct word here.
...Fixing this kind of distortion removes a distraction from the viewer and lets them see the group of trees for what they are, in the proper relationship to one another. And that, IMHO, is a very good thing.

Agree. Its one thing to be in the habit of checking your level on the back standard. Its another thing to actually look at the image and think about what you're trying to do. There's an image I did years ago that ended up as a poster, looking down a row of trees, where I realized the the trees were actually splayed outward and tilting the back forward was the only thing that made it not distracting.
The other example I always think about is Ansel's early shot of a water tank where he used prodigious rise to keep the lines vertical, making the tank look absurd, really. I decided that I would start vertical but play it by ear after seeing that.

[dperez]

I would start vertical but play it by ear after seeing that.

Good advice. I will adopt this. Thank you.

-DP

[dperez]

When shooting uphill, give yourself a little extra vertical. Take account of windage, too...

Thanks for the tip, I will keep that in mind the next time I'm out with my AK. ;)