So, how often do you really use your camera's movements? [Archive]

rdenney

3-Sep-2012, 18:28

I spent the last week on an island off the coast of Massachusetts that only the residents know. It's accessible only by small boat (after a ferry ride, and considerable and taxing pedestrian schleppage to get to that small boat), off-grid, and features many houses that were built in the 18th century, including the one in which my wife and I stayed. Needless to say, without any of the usual amenities (read: distractions), I was able to spend a lot of time with photography, for the first time in ages. Color film is off to the lab, and I'm looking forward to posting some of my recent work for once. It feels great to do some work.

I made about 15 photos using large format, fairly evenly divided between architectural, near-field landscapes and studies, and more distant landscapes. And I made 20 photos using the Pentax 6x7, and several times that many using the Canon (mostly when being shown other houses by our host, whose roots on that island go back 120 years and whose heritage in that vicinity goes back to the Pilgrims--she is elderly and I had to work fast when she was showing us the house her grandfather built, or the house her father built, etc., so as not to take advantage of her hospitality).

When movements were available to me (the lens I used most on the Canon was the 24mm TSE), I used them on a high percentage of photos, even on hand-held photos. With the 4x5 camera, I used every movement on the camera--rise, fall, shift (front and rear), and tilt and swing (front and rear), and with lenses of three different focal lengths. About halfway through, I wondered if I was just trapped by my knowledge of these tools, but realized that they were crucial to my visualization of the image, even when I was not seeking general sharpness.

This has always been true for me, and it's the thing that keeps me using large format. I did things with the Pentax 6x7, but mostly stuff that is hard to do with large format (such as using a fisheye). And I used the DSLR when I needed to work fast and unobtrusively. But for many images where I had the time to work slowly, I just knew they would not do.

I am not sure my Epson-scanned large-format images will have any more enlargeability than my Nikon-scanned rollfilm images, but that really isn't the point. I wonder if we defend large-format too much on the basis of resolution and detail, when for me it's the sheer flexibility of the camera to make the impossible possible. Sure, the Canon tilt-shift lens can do a lot, but it's only one focal length, and each lens with that capability costs more than my whole 4x5 kit. Nothing on the Pentax provides tilts and swings. Digital cameras with general movements are often limited to a single focal length, or are monstrously expensive.

As I prepare my images in the coming weeks and months, I'll have more to say about it. But it was a good reminder of why I do this.

Rick "who even did some black and white for the first time in years" Denney

mdm

3-Sep-2012, 18:39

I nearly always use rise and or front tilt (or back tilt if none on front), but not much else.

Pawlowski6132

3-Sep-2012, 19:15

Never

William Whitaker

3-Sep-2012, 19:31

Tuckernuck?

Movements are over-rated.

BrianShaw

3-Sep-2012, 19:42

Tuckernuck?

Movements are over-rated.

Well don't give the secret away... only the locals know about that!

... and about movements... I agree, sometimes necessary but not as often as some would lead others to believe.

Greg Miller

3-Sep-2012, 19:48

Almost 100%. My standard process with LF is to get the camera at roughly the correct height. Level the camera. Then use rise/fall to fine tune the framing. I hate it when I see people using LF and tilting the camera up or down (unless they are using back tilt to adjust converging line) or are purposely trying to distort the image. Even when trying to cause converging lines, I prefer to start with with everything squared and neutral, then use back movements get the results I want.

Brian C. Miller

3-Sep-2012, 19:54

Rick, you should have used the poll option.

All the time, even if it's a little bit. Honestly, movements are such a butt-saver it's just not funny. Movements are the main reason I got into LF. Really, for $500 for my SG I gained a big negative and movements. What's not to love?

Kirk Gittings

3-Sep-2012, 19:58

I level the camera and use rises and falls always, slight tilt on landscapes commonly everything else extremely rarely.

Frank Petronio

3-Sep-2012, 20:27

I switched from a near perfect Technika that I loved to a monorail because I wanted more (and easier to access) movements and by golly, I use em all!

Mark Sawyer

3-Sep-2012, 20:41

I tend to use fast lenses wide open doing close-ups, so swings and tilts are a basic part of focusing every time. Rise/fall and shift hardly ever. Depends on what youi're doing...

Richard Wasserman

3-Sep-2012, 20:42

+1

I level the camera and use rises and falls always, slight tilt on landscapes commonly everything else extremely rarely.

Oren Grad

3-Sep-2012, 20:51

I use rise/fall often, rarely anything else. But the main reason I bother with LF is to get big negatives for contact printing. I'd use it even if I couldn't have movements at all.

rdenney

3-Sep-2012, 21:04

Rick, you should have used the poll option.

I thought about it, but I'm less interested in the numbers than in the stories.

I already see a fundamental divide!

It's interesting to note that for most of what I was photographing, the distances covering the important subjects were similar to the distance to the nearest subject. The closer the subject, the less the depth of field and the more we might need tilts and swings to manage the focus plane. For my subjects last week, I was working closer than one usually does when doing "landscapes".

Rick "still needing very small apertures for many shots" Denney

Mark Stahlke

3-Sep-2012, 21:27

Shooting mostly landscapes, I use front rise/fall, front and rear tilt and, rarely, front and rear swing. I can't imagine working without front movements.

Vaughn

3-Sep-2012, 21:29

I use them all every time -- though sometimes I use them in the null position.

munz6869

3-Sep-2012, 21:40

I level the camera and use rises and falls always, slight tilt on landscapes commonly everything else extremely rarely.

+ another 1

Marc!

welly

3-Sep-2012, 22:07

I've not been using camera movements a great deal, mainly because I'm still figuring them out. Shift movements I can do all day - not exactly brain surgery, is it? (and I should know (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I)).

Tilt movements I'm still trying to grasp. Getting there though! But my worry is when I do get my tilt movements honed, that's all I'll be doing, if you know what I mean.

C. D. Keth

3-Sep-2012, 22:29

Pretty often. Probably more than 50% of the time I use something or other.

IanG

4-Sep-2012, 00:57

Like others I use movements often, far more than 50% of the time, again usually just slight tilt and rise/fall but they are necessary.

While in Turkey I've been shooting hand held with a Crown Graphic and found I was losing shots because of the camera's poor set of movements, switching to a Super Graphic overcame the problems.

Ian

jcoldslabs

4-Sep-2012, 01:45

I got into LF over 25 years ago mostly for the larger negative size. I was enlarging just about everything to 11x14 or 16x20 back then and what mattered to me was greater tonal smoothness and lack of grain in the big prints. It all started when I realized I was shooting my Nikon on a tripod all the time and I thought, "If I'm bothering to haul this tripod around so I can shoot stopped down all the time I might as well put the biggest camera I reasonably can on it."

Fast-forward to 2012 and some of that early rationale still lingers, although I use movements more often than I did then. Ironically, I haven't printed anything big in years. For "straight" shooting I tend to follow Kirk's example--mostly front rise or fall or shift as needed for keeping everything parallel. But as many of my image posts will attest, I have been tilting and swinging to distort the image more than to correct it lately.

Jonathan

Steven Tribe

4-Sep-2012, 03:03

I don't swing.
Of course, it's quite hard with tailboard cameras.
Other controls - about 20% up to now.

cosmicexplosion

4-Sep-2012, 03:25

movement
we need a new one.

Armin Seeholzer

4-Sep-2012, 03:39

I level the camera and use rises and falls always, slight tilt on landscapes commonly everything else extremely rarely.
+ another 1

Marc!

+1

Peter Gomena

4-Sep-2012, 03:53

Front rise/fall frequently, rear or front tilts in landscapes, swings and shifts less often. There just are times when you need a view camera to do the job! I love my Hasselblad, but there are times when I want a tilt so badly . . .

Peter Gomena

evan clarke

4-Sep-2012, 03:58

I use Arcas withnheared movements all the way around. I use them about 100%, at least rise, shift and a little tilt..

Frank Petronio

4-Sep-2012, 04:37

Sounds like most of you guys should just get Crown Graphics.....

Ken Lee

4-Sep-2012, 05:45

Richard Wasserman

4-Sep-2012, 05:47

rdenney

4-Sep-2012, 06:08

Like other features, view camera movements make certain photographs possible. Lack of movements rule out certain photographs. One could ask the same question about long exposures, or wide lenses, or long lenses, or close focus: using them, tells us about how you shoot and see.

That's why it's not a poll. This isn't a question that has a democratic answer.

I think you nailed the notion that using movements demonstrates how the photographer sees the subject. And you really nailed it with the notion that we see photos within the framework of what the camera in our hands can do. I made photos with the Sinar that were not possible with the Pentax, and vice versa.

The particular scenery on this little island is intimate. With a few exceptions (which was more fun to explore with the fisheye on my Pentax), the broad sweep of the landscape would have been a little too minimalist for my tastes.

Rick "glad he had all three cameras to open the door to three different photographic strategies" Denney

cosmicexplosion

4-Sep-2012, 06:12

why were they not called movement cameras

rdenney

4-Sep-2012, 06:17

why were they not called movement cameras

Alternatively, why did the technology of view camera progress over the decades to provide more and more movements with greater and greater ease and precision?

Rick "preferring to justify features on the basis of actual use, not naming conventions" Denney

BrianShaw

4-Sep-2012, 06:21

Alternatively, why did the technology of view camera progress over the decades to provide more and more movements with greater and greater ease and precision?

... because it could be done.

... becuase it looks really cool in the advertisement when wrapped around like a pretzel.

... because some people use lots of movement some of the time so what's the problem with a little "excess capabilility".

BrianShaw

4-Sep-2012, 06:21

I use them all every time -- though sometimes I use them in the null position.

I wish I were as smart as Vaughn. Of course...

rdenney

4-Sep-2012, 06:27

Well don't give the secret away... only the locals know about that!

Anyone can look at a map and guess. But I can understand why those who live there are careful about whom they invite. For the record, the island where I stayed is 100% privately owned, and landing there requires permission.

Rick "not saying where it was" Denney

Ken Lee

4-Sep-2012, 06:27

That's why it's not a poll. This isn't a question that has a democratic answer.

I think you nailed the notion that using movements demonstrates how the photographer sees the subject. And you really nailed it with the notion that we see photos within the framework of what the camera in our hands can do. I made photos with the Sinar that were not possible with the Pentax, and vice versa.

The particular scenery on this little island is intimate. With a few exceptions (which was more fun to explore with the fisheye on my Pentax), the broad sweep of the landscape would have been a little too minimalist for my tastes.

Rick "glad he had all three cameras to open the door to three different photographic strategies" Denney

Yes :)

Some people say that they have a vision, and then select their equipment to render it: that's one extreme. Others say that the equipment dictates the vision: that's the other extreme.

Then there's the middle-ground, which gets so little attention these days because it's not controversial: controversy sells - especially to those who find controversy entertaining :cool:

rdenney

4-Sep-2012, 06:39

Then there's the middle-ground, which gets so little attention these days because it's not controversial: controversy sells - especially to those who find controversy entertaining :cool:

I suspect experienced photographers sub-consciously catalog possible subjects within any given field of view, and (perhaps consciously) filter out those that are not possible with the equipment in their hands. But they may return with different equipment. That process I understand pretty well, having made all the necessary mistakes over the years.

Another choice: Color, or black and white. The light was full of color during our trip--I didn't make many black and white images. I just didn't see many where the lack of color was an advantage rather than a disadvantage. But had I brought only black and white film, I'd have selected subjects that I saw in black and white.

This is a separate process from making art, which remains a complete mystery to me.

Rick "who has a catalog of possible images for a future trip, if the weather is gray instead of sunny" Denney

Brian Ellis

4-Sep-2012, 06:56

I'd guess that I use some movement about half the time, most frequently front rise or front tilt. I don't know what people who say they use some movement all the time are photographing. I find that with landscapes there are many times when a movement serves no purpose.

I'm sure you already know this but just in case, Pentax makes (or made) a shift lens (no tilt) for your 6x7. It's a good lens, I used it a lot with architectural subjects.

BrianShaw

4-Sep-2012, 06:59

Anyone can look at a map and guess. But I can understand why those who live there are careful about whom they invite. For the record, the island where I stayed is 100% privately owned, and landing there requires permission.

Rick "not saying where it was" Denney

Ya, know what you mean. We're quite discriminating about who we invite to our private island too.

rdenney

4-Sep-2012, 07:41

I'm sure you already know this but just in case, Pentax makes (or made) a shift lens (no tilt) for your 6x7. It's a good lens, I used it a lot with architectural subjects.

I own it, and used it last week. But there are issues with it: It's not really wide enough for architectural interiors, and it doesn't have tilt. Without tilt, it solves a few problems, but certainly not all the problems. And it's limited to just one focal length, which further limits its application. The Canon 24mm TSE lens is more usefully wide, but it's still just one focal length. And the lack of rotational independence between shift and tilt was quite limiting with this older lens. Countering that, though, was the one-inch focal length, which for small display needs provides lots of depth of field.

You also said you don't know why some photographers say they use some movement all the time. I submit that the way you phrased this question provides the answer. Some people, when tools are available, see opportunities (maybe even subconsciously) to use them. Not everyone is photographing the sorts of landscapes from which you are extrapolating. There are no distant mountains on a 900-acre island with a maximum elevation of about 35 feet.

To be sure, I was surprised (again) by how much I was depending on movements for the photos I was making. But perhaps I was really surprised (again) by how little depth of field large format provides, especially for the intimate landscapes and architectural photos I was making, which necessitate using those movements.

Rick "who had a couple of situations where both tilt/swing movements and f/45 were required" Denney

Vaughn

4-Sep-2012, 08:05

Quote Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post
I use them all every time -- though sometimes I use them in the null position.

=BrianShaw;928273]I wish I were as smart as Vaughn. Of course...

I can be quite the smart donkey at times, but just to be sure that folks know what I meant; having a movement in a null/neutral position is a conscience decision, and thus all movements are 'used' every time I construct the image on the GG.

Preston

4-Sep-2012, 08:13

When I first started using a view camera (an Omega 45E monorail) I was mostly interested in the big nagative. As I progressed, I used mostly rise/fall and front shift, and finally front swing/tilt and back tilt/swing. Today, I use all the movements that my Chamonix 045N-2 is capable of, but only when they are needed. I find that front shift is quite useful for taking shots of reflections in window panes. I can shift the front so that the camera is not visible.

Rick "who had a couple of situations where both tilt/swing movements and f/45 were required" Denney

Same here, Rick.

This is has been an interesting discussion.

--P

Kirk Gittings

4-Sep-2012, 08:25

BrianShaw

4-Sep-2012, 08:27

I can relate to that... in all formats.

rdenney

4-Sep-2012, 08:47

Another interesting thing-for me at least. IMPE, There is an inverse relationship between "fiddling" with the movements and getting good images. The more I "fiddle" the less likely the image will be a keeper because (I think anyway) I am trying to force a weak concept instead of simply responding to light, form etc.

This is a really good thought-provoker.

There have certainly been times when I cooled on the subject as I was going through the technical requirements to get a sharp image. And there have been times when what I thought was possible turned out not to be (and sometimes these are discovered after the fact).

And there have been many times when I've made a weak image.

But with some thinking, I'm not aware that I've tried to make an image stronger by more fiddling with the camera's controls. In all cases, I go in with the thought that this, this, and that needs to be sharp, and this, that, or the other thing needs to be in the picture or not in the picture.

Example: I used shift to change the viewpoint so that I could center a hand-pump between two windows. I'm not sure the image is all that strong, but if it's weak it's not because that pump is centered between those windows.

Another example: I used shift to make a photo of the characteristic shape of a centuries-old saltbox house. I wanted the shape without any horizontal perspective convergence, but I also wanted to isolate the facade from another house in the background. I moved the camera laterally to hide that background house, and used shift to restore the apparent perspective. Is the image stronger without that house in the background? I dunno. But that's how I saw it.

Where I think you are spot-on is when we think an image will work just because we can make it really, really sharp. And making it that sharp might take some doing. But if it's a strong image, we can sure ruin it by leaving it unsharp, right?

As I said before, I'm not sure I see strong images reliably--that's a different issue. But if I have an image in my head, I want to execute it even if requires lots of fiddling.

Rick "noting that the examples above did not require much fiddling" Denney

cosmicexplosion

4-Sep-2012, 09:01

John Kasaian

4-Sep-2012, 09:57

It absolutely positively depends on the subject, location and lens being used.

Leigh

4-Sep-2012, 10:09

Frequently when appropriate; seldom when inappropriate.

It all depends on the subject and the desired rendering.

- Leigh

Kevin Crisp

4-Sep-2012, 10:16

Rise or fall, most of the time. Front tilt or rear tilt, often. Swing? Virtually never.

IanG

4-Sep-2012, 10:28

I think Kirk has a good point here:

Another interesting thing-for me at least. IMPE, There is an inverse relationship between "fiddling" with the movements and getting good images. The more I "fiddle" the less likely the image will be a keeper because (I think anyway) I am trying to force a weak concept instead of simply responding to light, form etc.

like whipping a dead horse.
a good point about mechanical movements supplanting inspiration. some times i wish the view camera as deft as digital so i did not have to think, and go through every step. but instead could follow my eyes. my sense.

but that comes from trying to get more than two shots pre sunrise up a mt.

It's about being familiar with equipment and experience, setting up a Large format camera and applying movements needs to become second sense needing little or no thought not impeding on the creative process.

Ian

Vaughn

4-Sep-2012, 10:53

...It's about being familiar with equipment and experience, setting up a Large format camera and applying movements needs to become second sense needing little or no thought not impeding on the creative process.

Ian

After over 30 years of using view cameras, this is where I am at. Early on, I would get the camera tied in a knot...I learned to step back, return the movements to their neutral positions, and simplify.

4-Sep-2012, 11:28

I'm not into the f64 style landscape... 5% of the time for 4x5, 25% of the time for 8x10 just because DOF is narrower I might need some foreground detail provided by tilt. A little rise is good once in a while to keep trees and building straight.

Indoors with a super wide on my dslr I just make sure the camera is level and crop it after if the composition isn't quite right, no t/s lenses for that.

E. von Hoegh

4-Sep-2012, 12:16

For landscapes I use a bit of front tilt. Sometimes I don't use any movements. For tabletop stuff I might use all the movements extensively. For buildings I use whatever works for the scene I'm photographing. I mean, I bought these cameras because their movements combined with the big film let me take the kind of pictures I like..... of course I use the movements.

I've been playing a bit with a shift lens on 35mm, too.

Brian C. Miller

4-Sep-2012, 13:15

I don't think that using a lot of movements is like "whipping a dead horse." The movements are used to form the camera, as far as it needs to be formed and as far as I can, between lens, film, and subject. It's completely backwards to seek inspiration from the tool. It's like a painter asking a brush, "what shall I paint?" The brush doesn't contain anything more than does the lens or the camera. Yes, a composition may fail to form, but shouldn't the composition have been at least partly formed before the camera was set up?

BrianShaw

4-Sep-2012, 13:21

Yes, indeed it should!

E. von Hoegh

4-Sep-2012, 13:23

Ben Syverson

4-Sep-2012, 13:28

For portraits, I use movements 100% of the time.

E. von Hoegh

4-Sep-2012, 13:30

For portraits, I use movements 100% of the time.

The only movement I use 100% of the time is the focus thingy....

Eric Rose

4-Sep-2012, 13:37

Leigh

4-Sep-2012, 13:44

... shouldn't the composition have been at least partly formed before the camera was set up?
Partially formed? certainly.
Fully formed as envisioned? frequently not.

There are numerous impediments to achieving your vision of a subject, not the least of which are large holes in the ground, imposing buildings
that obscure your view, and other features that require a non-optimal camera position.

Movements can sometimes compensate at least partially for poor camera position or field of view.

- Leigh

BrianShaw

4-Sep-2012, 13:52

Movements can sometimes compensate at least partially for poor camera position or field of view.

This reminds me of the time I was photographing with my brother. He was futzing over movements, and I picked up my tripod and moved a few feet. We rarely photograph together anymore. ;)

jnantz

4-Sep-2012, 14:29

i use a speed or slr about 90% of the time so i use rise or nothing
the other 10% of the time i use movements when i have to, and not when i don't ..

Brian Ellis

4-Sep-2012, 14:42

. . . You also said you don't know why some photographers say they use some movement all the time. I submit that the way you phrased this question provides the answer. Some people, when tools are available, see opportunities (maybe even subconsciously) to use them. Not everyone is photographing the sorts of landscapes from which you are extrapolating. There are no distant mountains on a 900-acre island with a maximum elevation of about 35 feet. . . .

Actually there are very few mountains, distant or otherwise, in Florida where I spent most of my photographic life. : - ) I wasn't extrapolating from anything, I use the term "landscape" very broadly to mean any photograph made outdoors in which a man-made object or a person isn't the principal subject.

cosmicexplosion

4-Sep-2012, 15:49

i was taking a wide shot of a strip of buildings,
and the street signs caught the sun,
one was in focus the other out, as where at far left of shot, using 2d and 360 dagor

so there i was oscillating the swing between the 'give way' and 'stop' sign being in focus
wondering if a different rig might have had both in focus

and where could i buy one at 630 am in katoomba, in the blue mountains...

mean while the sun rose fast....

Leigh

4-Sep-2012, 15:56

Jim Galli

4-Sep-2012, 15:56

I level the camera and use rises and falls always, slight tilt on landscapes commonly everything else extremely rarely.

I use the movements EVERY time they work for me. Probably 80+% of the time, I'm using at least one. ??? Why would you not?? The question seems sort of . . .

Heroique

4-Sep-2012, 16:15

There is no substitute for preparation.

That's why I carry 18 lenses with me for the 4x5. I like to have the right one for any particular shot.

Knowing I have the right one with me is less frustrating than knowing the right one is back at the office. :eek:

- Leigh

Are you that person we've heard about who carries multiple 4x5 cameras so he'll have the right camera w/ the right movements for his shot?

Leigh

4-Sep-2012, 16:19

No. I have four 4x5 cameras, but normally only carry one.

- Leigh

Heroique

4-Sep-2012, 16:33

No. I have four 4x5 cameras, but normally only carry one.

I think your “always-carry-18-lenses” strategy would make an entertaining (perhaps contentious) thread!

“How many lenses in your bag will ensure that you have the right one for the shot?”

A poll would help illustrate our preferences – and I’d predict “3” would be the most common response, but the “1” and “more than 10” options would certainly generate the most interesting posts.

Bill_1856

4-Sep-2012, 16:37

Almost never in 4x5, some in 5x7, even more in Whole Plate, and I don't do 8x10 but have a difficult time imagining that I wouldn't do a whole lot of them.

Leigh

4-Sep-2012, 16:47

I think your “always-carry-18-lenses” strategy would make an entertaining (perhaps contentious) thread!
Well, that's the way my kit is set up. All the lenses, filters, compendium shade, accessories, plus the Zone VI camera in one backpack.

I carry that same backpack when I'm using the Sinar F2 or Plaubel monorails (in their own cases), or the Tachihara, or the Toko.

No reason I should remove any of the lenses or other items from the backpack. That's where they're stored when not in use.

- Leigh

C. D. Keth

4-Sep-2012, 17:45

Well, that's the way my kit is set up. All the lenses, filters, compendium shade, accessories, plus the Zone VI camera in one backpack.

I carry that same backpack when I'm using the Sinar F2 or Plaubel monorails (in their own cases), or the Tachihara, or the Toko.

No reason I should remove any of the lenses or other items from the backpack. That's where they're stored when not in use.

- Leigh

I'd love to see a photo of your backpack all packed up but open so we can see everything. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around 18 lenses plus a camera, plus holders, plus other sundries in a backpack that's reasonable to carry at least a few miles.:confused:

C. D. Keth

4-Sep-2012, 17:54

I think your “always-carry-18-lenses” strategy would make an entertaining (perhaps contentious) thread!

“How many lenses in your bag will ensure that you have the right one for the shot?”

A poll would help illustrate our preferences – and I’d predict “3” would be the most common response, but the “1” and “more than 10” options would certainly generate the most interesting posts.

Heroique, from your idea I just posted a thread with a poll on this subject. I think it will indeed prompt lively discussion.

Leigh

4-Sep-2012, 17:55

I never claimed to carry it "a few miles". I carry it from the office to the van, and back again.

Here's an earlier shot with about 13 lenses.
http://www.mayadate.org/pix/BPX_lenses_DSC_0623.JPG

I re-arranged it, moving the accessories shown here at the sides into the upper compartment to make room for the remaining lenses.

The camera is in the pouch folded forward in the shot above.

- Leigh

Michael_4514

4-Sep-2012, 18:02

I don't usually use a lot of movements, but when I need them I'm very glad they're there. Also, my Norma makes me smile every time I use it—I don't think a Crown would have that same effect.

+1.

Like a lot of others here, I use movements almost all the time, but not all the movements most of the time. Usually, just rise and a little tilt. I have a Crown Graphic and I have a Norma, and I just like using the Norma better, whether I use the movements or not.

Michael_4514

4-Sep-2012, 18:05

I use them all every time -- though sometimes I use them in the null position.

And I use all my brain all the time, sometimes in the null position.

Michael_4514

4-Sep-2012, 18:09

For the record, the island where I stayed is 100% privately owned, and landing there requires permission.

Rick "not saying where it was" Denney

Actually, that's not true. By law, all beaches and banks of navigable waters are public property, to the high water mark, which is essentially the highest point that any tide or wave ever reaches. Think big storms. So it's certainly within one's rights to land on the island, although one could not venture inland without permission.

Michael_4514

4-Sep-2012, 18:21

It's completely backwards to seek inspiration from the tool. . . . shouldn't the composition have been at least partly formed before the camera was set up?

Yes, absolutely, but I do think that the capabilities of the tool can be a source of inspiration, in the sense that if one doesn't know what a tool can do, the inspiration is not likely to be there. Give an artist new tools, and he or she is bound to put them to new, creative uses.

jnantz

4-Sep-2012, 18:49

sounds good .. if it works, it works ..

i'd rather not have to worry about if i had the right lens ..
i only have 1 or 2 for the slr ( only really use 1 )
and a few more for the speed and rail ...
i find that having less is more for me at least
so i can concentrate on the subject, not the other "stuff" ...

i was with someone once who had so many lenses that he
missed his golden opportunity because he couldn't decide on
the optics ... i was done before he even unzipped his satchel ...
(it didn't work for him, but he hasn't changed his ways :) )

There is no substitute for preparation.

That's why I carry 18 lenses with me for the 4x5. I like to have the right one for any particular shot.

Knowing I have the right one with me is less frustrating than knowing the right one is back at the office. :eek:

- Leigh

Pawlowski6132

4-Sep-2012, 19:54

For portraits, I use movements 100% of the time.

Huh? Why??

Frank Petronio

4-Sep-2012, 20:37

Huh? Why??

Ever notice that 90% of large format portraits are square to the camera? Maybe it's appropriate. But maybe it's just lazy?

If you shoot wide open and your subject is not facing you head on, you want to swing to keep both eyes in focus.

I usually decide where I want to center the lens - eyes, chest, belly button, or crotch? - then rise/fall for composition.

Shooting down onto Playmate centerfolds or dead bodies... Tilt.

Of course a lot of hipsters use movements the "wrong" way to make things look dreamy or cool. Not counting those doofuses.

Vaughn

4-Sep-2012, 20:49

And I use all my brain all the time, sometimes in the null position.

The null position is where the creativity comes from...

Chris Wong

4-Sep-2012, 20:53

[QUOTE=Michael_4514;928554]+1.

Like a lot of others here, I use movements almost all the time, but not all the movements most of the time. Usually, just rise and a little tilt.

Same here. Mostly rise and tilt if it is needed for landscape shots. When I got a Canon digital camera I felt like I was missing something when I was shooting and so I bought a tilt/shift lens which allowed me to use some tilt. I now feel like I am using the digital camera to its maximum ability for my landscape shooting.

Mark Barendt

4-Sep-2012, 21:04

I use the movements EVERY time they work for me. Probably 80+% of the time, I'm using at least one. ??? Why would you not?? The question seems sort of . . .

:D

Indeed, I don't know why I would not?

jcoldslabs

4-Sep-2012, 22:11

One reason why not might be lack of knowledge and understanding. I know when I bought my first LF camera, a Toyo 45A, I shot with it like a big version of my Nikon. Movements were an afterthought at the time. I loved the clarity of the big negatives and made some fantastic enlargements, and I could not see where movements would have made things any better for the type of shooting I was doing (I was wrong, by the way). I have since learned to use the camera's movements to my advantage, but let's not forget that people often enter LF without any training or mentor or guide. Sure, you can read books about it--I certainly did--but I STILL have trouble with Scheimpflug after all these years no matter how much I read and practice.

Jonathan

Oren Grad

4-Sep-2012, 22:27

Yes, a composition may fail to form, but shouldn't the composition have been at least partly formed before the camera was set up?

Why?

Mark Barendt

4-Sep-2012, 22:37

I agree Jonathan.

My first was a Calumet CC400, still have it. Have a Toyo 45A II now too.

From the very beginning it was the movements, and their effect, that fascinated me most. The really great tones, detail, and sharpness was just gravy.

Struan Gray

5-Sep-2012, 05:29

I use movements on almost every shot, for me it's the major point of using LF. It was the tonality which attracted me to LF in the first place, but it's movements which keep me coming back. Sharpness is a distant third.

rdenney

5-Sep-2012, 05:41

This reminds me of the time I was photographing with my brother. He was futzing over movements, and I picked up my tripod and moved a few feet. We rarely photograph together anymore. ;)

The position affects the composition, however. I use movements a lot because moving the camera causes more problems than it solves.

Rick "sometimes manipulating reality in search of realism" Denney

Heroique

5-Sep-2012, 10:24

I use them all every time -- though sometimes I use them in the null position.

BTW, I think Vaughn raises an important moral question that needs clarification.

When you finalize movements, and notice that all movements happen to be in their neutral position, can you go home and say – w/ a clear conscience, mind you – that you used movements for your shot?

If you go home and say you did, but someone sees that your field notes clearly state “no movements used,” can they bring you to court and use the evidence of your field notes against you?

Vaughn

5-Sep-2012, 10:39

Morals smorals...I take my movements before I leave the house -- saves me from digging a hole out in the field.

BrianShaw

5-Sep-2012, 10:44

.. If you go home and say you did, but someone sees that your field notes clearly state “no movements used,” can they bring you to court and use the evidence of your field notes against you?

Probably not, but they sure can give you a bunch of grief about "improper use of a view camera" and how a "better choice" of camera could/should have been made.

E. von Hoegh

5-Sep-2012, 11:47

If you go home and say you did, but someone sees that your field notes clearly state “no movements used,” can they bring you to court and use the evidence of your field notes against you?

I hope so. If the judge has three active brain cells he/she will give them 90 days for contempt in bringing such a frivolous suit. I'd enjoy that immensely. (smiling smiley)

lenicolas

5-Sep-2012, 12:38

Like many here, I point my levelled camera in the direction of what I'm shooting and use rise/fall of the front element to fine-tune framing.

However, I find myself doing the same thing with all cameras I use, wether or not they have movements.
With a 6x7 or a small format, if leveling the camera doesn't give me the frame I want, i can slighlty adjust height of my tripod.
If that doesn't do it, I will take a step back, shoot a slighlty wider frame and later crop it.

There's a height and a distance I prefer to shoot from.
So i I need to tweak too much on my height or distance to get the frame i want, eventually I will tilt my camera and correct perspectives in photoshop.
(It realy doesn't happen that often)

As for the tilt on my 4x5, I never use it, I don't mind oof areas in my photographs.

rdenney

5-Sep-2012, 12:50

As for the tilt on my 4x5, I never use it, I don't mind oof areas in my photographs.

Neither do I, unless it is my subject that is noticeably fuzzy.

Often, though, my subjects refuse to be parallel to the film.

Rick "pesky subjects" Denney

Mark Barendt

5-Sep-2012, 12:51

BTW, I think Vaughn raises an important moral question that needs clarification.

When you finalize movements, and notice that all movements happen to be in their neutral position, can you go home and say – w/ a clear conscience, mind you – that you used movements for your shot?

If you go home and say you did, but someone sees that your field notes clearly state “no movements used,” can they bring you to court and use the evidence of your field notes against you?

What field notes? ;)

Leigh

5-Sep-2012, 13:28

If you go home and say you did, but someone sees that your field notes clearly state “no movements used,”...
Your notes should say: "Rise/fall 0, tilt 0, swing 0"

This would eliminate the confusion.

Then lock your notes in a safe and don't let anybody see them until you're dead and famous.

- Leigh

C. D. Keth

5-Sep-2012, 15:46

Your notes should say: "Rise/fall 0, tilt 0, swing 0"

This would eliminate the confusion.

Then lock your notes in a safe and don't let anybody see them until you're dead and famous.

- Leigh

Or you could optimize on the mystique once you're gone by considering those yes/no questions, "Rise/Fall: Y, Tilt: Y, Swing: Y" :D

Drew Wiley

5-Sep-2012, 16:01

I use some sort of movements nearly 100% of the time. That's why a view camera was
invented! Front and rear tilts mostly, rise often, sometimes swing; rarely shift.

pdmoylan

5-Sep-2012, 20:11

Can't recall a single LF image I've taken where movements were not used. Why use LF if you don't need or understand movements? Why would you cycle in 4th gear all the time when you can modify the effort and result by shifting gears. Seems nonsensical to me.

jcoldslabs

5-Sep-2012, 22:11

Why use LF if you don't need or understand movements?

1. Big negatives, often for contact printing.
2. The ability to use old (or new) barrel lenses.*
3. LF pinhole cameras are fun.
4. The Speed Graphic's focal plane shutter (with that camera you trade limited movements to have the shutter).
5. Did I mention the big negatives?

*Petzvals, I have found, are not friendly to movements anyway even if they are available.

As for the cycling analogy, not every cyclist shifts gears. My brother is an avid cyclist and rides a single-speed bike exclusively to commute daily to work and to ride for fun. Different priorities for different people, I guess!

Jonathan

Frank Petronio

5-Sep-2012, 22:55

I don't know, the big negative is overated IMHO, at least compared to a good Mamiya 7 or Fuji 6x9.... I know from long and expensive experience that comparing them to handheld large-format is a wash, if not clearly in favor of the medium format for nearly all handheld work.

Roll-film cameras dominated portraiture for several generations for very good reasons, as has digital since.

What works in favor of large format is the tripod and the time factor. Knowing that you are going to spend at least a minute or twenty making a picture, then laboriously and expensively processing or editing it means that you slow down and make your fewer pictures count.

Large format is also advantageous with willing portrait subjects (i.e. not babies, cats, or fidgeteers). Because it is rare and novel, and people recognize the time and effort you're putting into making their picture, you are often rewarded with a heightened sense of connection once the big cameras come out.

In other words it is all a psychological advantage, not a technical-quality one. Making a few obscure camera movements and generally behaving like Felix Ungar is part of that "slowness" that is so different and welcome.

Scotty230358

5-Sep-2012, 23:11

Mainly front rise and tilt.

jcoldslabs

6-Sep-2012, 01:49

Frank,

I'll concede that a solid Mamiya 7 or Fuji 6x9 shot rivals a lesser LF image (handheld, in your example). The two largest prints I have of my own work hanging in my house are both 16x20 Cibachromes from Velvia, one from 4x5 and one from a Fuji GSW690II. Both look fabulous at that size, although the level of minute discernible detail in the print made from the 4x5 is perhaps superior. I remember taking each shot, and I can tell you that the experience of framing the 4x5 photo with my Toyo was a more pleasurable and memorable one than the act of holding the Fuji to my eye and clicking the shutter.

I agree with your description of "psychological advantage," but I would argue that works not just for the subject but for the photographer, too. Last week I had my 8x10 at our neighborhood park and a guy walked over to me and asked why I still shoot film. It's a fair question, and I won't even argue that the 2D shots are superior to a good digital capture, but shooting a digital shot (or twenty) of the slide at the park, or snapping a couple with the Mamiya 7, would have taken all of ten seconds, whereas setting up the 2D allowed me to have a conversation with a mother and her two young kids who were fascinated by what I was doing. All of that adds to my photographic experience and is something I would lose if I weren't shooting large format, movements or no.

Jonathan

Mark Barendt

6-Sep-2012, 03:27

I agree that a big chunk of the advantage of large format is psychological, as stated above that's true for both photographer and subject.

Another advantage of LF which is just as important for me is in being able to do more of my creative work at the camera rather than at home.

It is the same reason I break out my Holga for snaps, choosing the "right" tool for the job makes printing the result I want easier.

cosmicexplosion

6-Sep-2012, 06:19

bit of a silly question really
like asking a pub full of punters how much they drink...

Cletus

6-Sep-2012, 08:00

I know the question here is "What movements do you use, if any", but I'll second the 'psychological' advantage of LF too.

I'm still quite new to 8x10 and in the process of learning the ropes of the larger format. I know I went 'round and 'round for many months making the decision to move up from 4x5 and ultimately, it was a go, both for the larger negatives and the quality of the final contact print.

I had asked this question here and there was some discussion - to me there is enough improvement in the sharpness, detail and tonality of the final contact print to be worth the trouble. And in all reality there's not a h*ll of a lot of difference betwixt an 8x10 contact print and an 8x10 enlargement from 4x5. the difference is there though, so for me, the 'psychological advantage' mostly lies in the quality of the final print, whether real or perceived. Also the "advantage" of being able to do alt process contact printing without a digital negative.

But back to the question: Yes, I use movements and they are solely dictated by the subject. I have always struggled with "Scheimpflug focusing" and until recently, when I needed to apply the principle I just basically fiddled around randomly until I got something approximating good focus - and then stopped down to f45 to make up the rest.

Then the other day, for the first time, (and in no small part due to the excellent advice obtained here by some of you) I was able to systematically correct the perspective of the "tall tower" I was shooting AND bring it into correct, tack sharp focus (wide open) utilizing Scheimpflug rules. I had to tilt the camera up slightly to get the framing I needed as front rise had run out on the tall subject I was photographing. It was a successful photograph and I felt quite confident in which movements were needed and to what degree to bring the tower properly into focus.

So yes, I use movement as required, which is probably 50-60% of the time for the subjects I shoot. It will always be a learning process to determine WHEN they are required, however, and movements are my second reason for using the big view camera. The first reason is the quality of the print possible because of the large negative. Those two reasons may change places as I become more experienced and confident with focusing and composing with the view camera.

Drew Bedo

6-Sep-2012, 08:04

I use front tilt a lot (70% of set ups?) and som swing. Rarely use rise or shift.

Cosmic-Ex: What actually is a "Punter"?

Leigh

6-Sep-2012, 14:09

I know from long and expensive experience that comparing them to handheld large-format is a wash, if not clearly in favor of the medium format for nearly all handheld work.
But Frank,

Nobody in his right mind shoots LF hand-held.

- Leigh

cosmicexplosion

6-Sep-2012, 14:12

oh sorry drew
in australia its a general term for people at a pub
i think it comes from the betting culture, one who takes a punt. a bet. they gather en-mass and stair at horses on a screen. yelling.

cosmicexplosion

6-Sep-2012, 14:16

But Frank,

Nobody in his right mind shoots LF hand-held.

- Leigh

-except all the millions of people who have used speed graphics. goersies, photomans, linhofs.

Steve Smith

6-Sep-2012, 14:16

Cosmic-Ex: What actually is a "Punter"?

Customer.

Steve.

E. von Hoegh

6-Sep-2012, 14:50

But Frank,

Nobody in his right mind shoots LF hand-held.

- Leigh

I use my Linhof handheld sometimes.

Leigh

6-Sep-2012, 14:57

-except all the millions of people who have used speed graphics. goersies, photomans, linhofs.
Those are press cameras, designed to be used hand-held, not real LF cameras.
They don't have movements as are being discussed in this thread.

They're designed to make larger negatives of what you can shoot with 35mm or MF. They're NOT portable studio cameras.

I started shooting with a 4x5 Graphic (not sure of the model) in 1960, so I'm pretty familiar with their capabilities.

- Leigh

jcoldslabs

6-Sep-2012, 16:39

...not real LF cameras.

A Hasselblad Flexbody has more movements than a Speed Graphic, but the movements don't make it LF, the negative size does.

Or have I missed something?

Jonathan

cosmicexplosion

6-Sep-2012, 16:47

Customer.

Steve.

Ah yes I thought the English had something to do with it!

Excuse my speculation

I should be working.

Leigh

6-Sep-2012, 17:07

A Hasselblad Flexbody has more movements than a Speed Graphic, but the movements don't make it LF, the negative size does.
As I said in the portion of that post that you conveniently deleted...

The Graphic and cameras of similar design are press cameras, not view cameras of the type being discussed in this thread.

The difference is in the variety and magnitude of movements available.

- Leigh

jcoldslabs

6-Sep-2012, 17:19

Leigh,

I think the trouble is semantic. You said:

"Those are press cameras, designed to be used hand-held, not real LF cameras."

I think what you meant to say was that press cameras are not real view cameras. If by view camera you mean one with a full range of movements front and back, then I agree.

(And for the record it was not a "convenient" truncation of your words in order to take them out of context, if that is your implication. I figured your original post was so close to my reply that people would read them in order and would not need a full re-quote.)

Jonathan

Leigh

6-Sep-2012, 17:24

I think what you meant to say was that press cameras are not real view cameras.
If by view camera you mean one with a full range of movements front and back, then I agree.
Yeah, that would be the more correct wording. Sorry for the confusion.

- Leigh

jcoldslabs

6-Sep-2012, 17:33

No problemo. :D

J.

rdenney

6-Sep-2012, 19:18

Those are press cameras, designed to be used hand-held, not real [view] cameras.

I think the Linhof Technika (such as the one Frank owned during his most recent contemplation of using 4x5 hand-held) and technical cameras like it cross your boundary. They are clearly designed to be usable hand-held, with "anatomical grips" and whatnot. But they also do provide extensive movements, at least compared to a press camera, and are pretty capable as view cameras with ground-glass-based image management.

And those Gaoersi-type cameras are certainly not press cameras, but rather specialty short-lens cameras. I keep thinking it would be fun to have one of those, but then I find myself needing movements not always provided in those cameras for most of my 4x5 photographs. I could see it for a lens so short that it does not provide any room for movements at all, such as a 65/8 Super Angulon on 4x5, or a 47/5.6 Super Angulon (not XL) with 6x12.

Rick "not thinking a Graphic is a good representative for the whole class that was mentioned" Denney

Leigh

6-Sep-2012, 19:27

C. D. Keth

6-Sep-2012, 20:42

Leigh

6-Sep-2012, 20:44

You can do that with a technika, can't you?
Do what?

- Leigh

C. D. Keth

6-Sep-2012, 20:55

Do what?

- Leigh

Do what you were talking about in the post I quoted: attach a viewfinder for handheld shooting.

SergeiR

6-Sep-2012, 21:00

front swing/tilt - nearly 90% of time - both on portraits and on landscapes. Rear ones to control projection - less often, but still use them.

Leigh

6-Sep-2012, 21:02

Do what you were talking about in the post I quoted: attach a viewfinder for handheld shooting.
That was the whole point of my post... You don't.

Press cameras have viewfinders; real view cameras do not.

- Leigh

C. D. Keth

6-Sep-2012, 21:13

That was the whole point of my post... You don't.

Press cameras have viewfinders; real view cameras do not.

- Leigh

You seem to be selectively not getting my point. Linhof makes their technica series, which I don't think anybody here would claim is not a large format camera, able to accept accessory viewfinders and rangefinders.

Leigh

6-Sep-2012, 21:21

Linhof makes their technica series, which I don't think anybody here would claim is not a large format camera, able to accept accessory viewfinders and rangefinders.
Yes, because it's a press camera. A fancy expensive press camera, but a press camera nonetheless.

I never said it was not LF.

- Leigh

C. D. Keth

6-Sep-2012, 21:37

Yes, because it's a press camera. A fancy expensive press camera, but a press camera nonetheless.

I never said it was not LF.

Those are press cameras, designed to be used hand-held, not real LF cameras.

Leigh

6-Sep-2012, 21:48

That was a mis-speak, corrected in post #116. I meant "not real view cameras".

You'll avoid a lot of useless banter if you read the entire thread.

- Leigh

C. D. Keth

6-Sep-2012, 21:53

I have. I just think all the doublespeak trying to inflate the importance of having lots of movements is funny. I see no reason why anything with a groundglass, even a press camera, for focusing and composition can't be a view camera. I think most people still call the sliding box daguerreotype cameras a kind of view camera.

Leigh

6-Sep-2012, 22:05

I just think all the doublespeak trying to inflate the importance of having lots of movements is funny.
Well, 'movements' is the subject of this thread.

- Leigh

Mark Sawyer

6-Sep-2012, 22:33

A Hasselblad Flexbody has more movements than a Speed Graphic, but the movements don't make it LF, the negative size does.

I got this in a fortune cookie once.

jcoldslabs

7-Sep-2012, 00:16

I got this in a fortune cookie once.

So YOU got that one? Back when I used to work in the fortune cookie factory, I never knew who ended up reading my one-off, stating-the-obvious, photo-related fortunes!

Jonathan

Mark Sawyer

7-Sep-2012, 00:22

So YOU got that one? Back when I used to work in the fortune cookie factory, I never knew who ended up reading my one-off, stating-the-obvious, photo-related fortunes!

Jonathan

It was a "one-off"? I just figured it was one of those generalizations that applied to everybody...

Leigh

7-Sep-2012, 00:23

Back when I used to work in the fortune cookie factory...
So you get the blame for all my misfortune??!! :eek:

- Leigh

jcoldslabs

7-Sep-2012, 01:20

It was a "one-off"? I just figured it was one of those generalizations that applied to everybody...

Mark, if a fortune cookie fortune that talks about a Flexbody is a generalization that applies to everybody....

So you get the blame for all my misfortune??!! :eek:

I've got blame to spare! (Wait, that came out wrong.) I've got a great capacity for blame! (No, not quite.) Blame me all you want! (There, that does it.)

Jonathan

Michael_4514

7-Sep-2012, 03:02

Well, 'movements' is the subject of this thread.

- Leigh

No, the subject of the thread is the use of movements, which I do not see as inviting a useless semantic and pedantic argument over the definitions of view camera, large format, press camera or anything else.

rdenney

7-Sep-2012, 04:42

Hi Rick,

Press cameras and their brethren have auxiliary viewfinders so you can aim the camera at the subject when it's loaded.

Real view cameras do not have such auxiliary finders.

This isn't as binary as you are suggesting.

Sure, Technikas and Speed Graphics have an auxiliary viewfinder to support handheld use. But both also have a ground glass and a tripod screw, and work just fine as view cameras.

You can try to tell a Technika owner that it's not a "real" view camera all you want, but I'm not sure they will be persuaded just because it also has an auxiliary viewfinder. It is certainly capable of all the movements discussed in this thread. After all, would putting a peepsight on the rear standard and a wire rectangle on the front standard of my Sinar F2 make it not a "real" view camera?

Rick "not knowing of many 4x5 and larger cameras that have no ground-glass focusing capability at all" Denney

E. von Hoegh

7-Sep-2012, 06:57

You're all wrong. The Technika is not a view camera, it is a technical camera which is what Linhof has been calling it as long as they have been making it.
And a Hasselblad Flex is not an LF camera, it is a medium format camera.

IanG

7-Sep-2012, 07:16

Hi Rick,

Press cameras and their brethren have auxiliary viewfinders so you can aim the camera at the subject when it's loaded.

Real view cameras do not have such auxiliary finders.

How would you aim them at the subject when they're hand-held (assuming you want proper framing, composition, level, etc)?

- Leigh

A lot depends on yot definition of a Press camera.

Here in the UK/Europe we call Linhof Technikas, Super Graphics, MPP MicroTechnical cameras and similar "Technical Cameras" they have a good range of movements but can also be used hand-held as Press camera they have auxillary viw finders if you want to use them.

I'm quite happy using my Super Graphic hand held with some movements, I compose on the ground glass and shoot using the wire frame finder for lining up and shooting. It's a compromise I have to make when I'm not allowed to use a tripod. It's impossible to tel from the prints whether I shot hand held or with a tripod, luckily the light is usually so strong I can shoot 1/200 @f22 which helps enormously.

Ian

rdenney

7-Sep-2012, 11:00

Leigh

7-Sep-2012, 15:22

The Technika is not a view camera, it is a technical camera which is what Linhof has been calling it as long as they have been making it.
Good point. What's the definition of a "technical" camera, as compared with a press camera or a view camera?

- Leigh

Vaughn

7-Sep-2012, 16:04

A press camera with movements, as far as I can tell.

Leigh

7-Sep-2012, 16:37

I could believe that.

- Leigh

Mark Barendt

7-Sep-2012, 16:38

Toyo calls the 45A a technical camera. http://toyoview.com/Products/45AII/45AII.html

E. von Hoegh

8-Sep-2012, 07:21

Good point. What's the definition of a "technical" camera, as compared with a press camera or a view camera?

- Leigh

More movements, more precise movements, more rigidity, longer bellows than a press camera. Not as much of the forgoing as a monorail view camera. Folds and is easily portable. Often has a rangefinder and capability of handheld use.

E. von Hoegh

8-Sep-2012, 07:31

Of course, Linhof called them technical cameras to prevent pedants from trying to categorize them as either press cameras or view cameras, since they can be used either way.

Rick "as the OP, declaring that any camera with movements applies" Denney

No. The technical camera has a niche of it's own. Line up a Speed Graphic, a Linhof Super Technika, and a Sinar monorail for a demonstration if you disagree. No pedantry involved.

IanG

8-Sep-2012, 07:32

Toyo calls the 45A a technical camera. http://toyoview.com/Products/45AII/45AII.html

It gets confusing because some British tailboard cameras were also called Technical cameras despite only having modest movements.

Ian

E. von Hoegh

8-Sep-2012, 07:34

Calling a pigeon an eagle does not make it an eagle.

rdenney

8-Sep-2012, 08:33

No. The technical camera has a niche of it's own. Line up a Speed Graphic, a Linhof Super Technika, and a Sinar monorail for a demonstration if you disagree. No pedantry involved.

In the context of this thread, of course it's pedantry. The thread isn't about which cameras do what, but whether people who have cameras with movements use them.

Rick "this is how technique threads morph into equipment threads" Denney

E. von Hoegh

8-Sep-2012, 08:54

In the context of this thread, of course it's pedantry.

Rick "this is how technique threads morph into equipment threads" Denney

In the context of the post(s) I was responding to, it is not pedantry. Sophistry perhaps.

Mark Barendt

8-Sep-2012, 09:08

It gets confusing because some British tailboard cameras were also called Technical cameras despite only having modest movements.

Ian

Words tend to lose their meaning when you give marketing departments (and politicians) a bit too much leash.

IanG

8-Sep-2012, 10:17

Words tend to lose their meaning when you give marketing departments (and politicians) a bit too much leash.

Perhaps not, the Sinclair Technical camera had greater movements than the usual tailboard cameras, more rise and fall and rear swing as well as the usual rear tilt. These extra features were demanded by customers often government departments.

What we call Technical cameras today aren't derived from US style "Press cameras" rather the 9x12 cameras of the Avus/Vag type made by countless manufacturers in German (and a few other European countries) before WWII. However like the Sinclair some customers required better features in terms of movements, revolving backs, inter-changeable lenses, these became known as Technical cameras.

Ian

Mark Barendt

8-Sep-2012, 10:41

IanG

8-Sep-2012, 11:06

You provide a good example Ian.

Not saying they can't use the word.

The problem is that the word becomes relative, Toyo uses it one way, Linhoff another, Sinclair different again. To be understood it must have qualifiers. Technical compared to what?

I think in all cases the word Technical means the range of movements gives better alround capabilities over more vasic cameras, remember when the term was coined there no monorail cameras, they are relatively late in terms of camera design.

Ian

ypres.bass

8-Sep-2012, 14:17

on my "main" camera i have all movements fixed by screws so i don't use movements never
on other cameras i use only shifts and rise/fall

Michael_4514

8-Sep-2012, 14:45

Rick "this is how technique threads morph into equipment threads" Denney

A shame too, I was enjoying the technique discussion, learning from it. The arguments over arbitrary designations of cameras is a big yawner. Heck, I'm a lawyer and some of you guys put my profession to shame with your ability to argue endlessly over the most insignificant of points.

alexn

8-Sep-2012, 17:06

Every time I use a camera that has movements I will use tilts (front and back) swings (front and back) rise/fall (front and back) and shifts (front) wherever they are required. Almost every shot uses front rise/fall and front/back tilts... Every time I use my home made P&S 4x5 I wish I could add tilt and rise/fall mechanisms..

Frank Petronio

8-Sep-2012, 17:53

I went away for a couple days and see another 100 posts on this vitally important topic. Did you guys resolve anything? Did E. von, Leigh, Brian, etc. ever sway anyone's opinion?

C. D. Keth

8-Sep-2012, 17:58

I went away for a couple days and see another 100 posts on this vitally important topic. Did you guys resolve anything? Did E. von, Leigh, Brian, etc. ever sway anyone's opinion?

No. I left thinking, "This is silly and pedantic. Just find a camera and use the damn thing."

jcoldslabs

8-Sep-2012, 23:26

Did E. von, Leigh, Brian, etc. ever sway anyone's opinion?

Most of us seem pretty rooted in our own points of view. I figure live and let live, shoot and let shoot, but I'm a bit of a liberal softie. What movements a camera has or what it is properly called is not something I am all that concerned about. What interests me are the photos people make with whatever gear they've got.

Back on topic, I can tell you that I've shot a lot of flowers in vases this week and I've used front tilt on every shot to get the foot of the vase and the front of the flowers in focus without having to stop down an ungodly amount.

Jonathan

tangyimail

9-Sep-2012, 08:36

Front rise and fall a lot, tilt about 1/3 of the time.

BrianShaw

9-Sep-2012, 16:41

I went away for a couple days and see another 100 posts on this vitally important topic. Did you guys resolve anything? Did E. von, Leigh, Brian, etc. ever sway anyone's opinion?

Ya, me too. I've been scarce the few days. Is there more work to be done or is this missiion completed?

Leigh

9-Sep-2012, 16:43

Did E. von, Leigh, Brian, etc. ever sway anyone's opinion?
Of course not. Why would you expect otherwise? :D

- Leigh

pdmoylan

9-Sep-2012, 17:34

Spent 3 hours today using 3 lenses with multiple scenes. Even the most straight forward image required some, albeit small, amount of front/back tilt. The most challenging image required a significant amount of back tilt, adjustments of front standard to maximize DOF, a slight amount of front swing and back and front shift. I can't imagine not having a full range of movements because I find them necessary.

ImSoNegative

9-Sep-2012, 20:50

I use some sort of movements every time, back and front tilt alot and front rise,

E. von Hoegh

10-Sep-2012, 07:29

Ya, me too. I've been scarce the few days. Is there more work to be done or is this missiion completed?

The mission to share the light of wisdom with godless heathens will never be completed.

E. von Hoegh

10-Sep-2012, 08:30

No. I left thinking, "This is silly and pedantic. Just find a camera and use the @#!*% thing."

You're missing half the fun then. (smiling smiley)

chassis

10-Sep-2012, 10:54

I'm new in LF (1 year of experience) and use movements with other-than-people shots. One shot in particular I achieved something acceptable to me, after a year of trying different things (lenses, viewpoints, movements, etc.). Movements made the image possible for me, in this situation.

Ivan J. Eberle

11-Sep-2012, 10:36

Most of the time, one move or another or sometimes all of them. Truth be told, I shoot LF as much for the improvement in resolution for larger prints as I do for any other consideration. The movements I use are often to avoid stopping down so much that I might as well have used a smaller format. Movements are obviously useful for architectural subjects, too.

Alan Gales

11-Sep-2012, 21:29

I use rise and fall and a little tilt quite often.

Scott Walker

12-Sep-2012, 06:26

Every time I use the camera

George E. Sheils

18-Sep-2012, 04:54

I use rise and fall and a little tilt quite often.

+ 1.

(Not much point having a camera with movements if you can't exploit them.)

John Kasaian

18-Sep-2012, 13:56

Rise and fall and a little tilt depends mostly on how much brandy I brought along:rolleyes:

Kevin J. Kolosky

18-Sep-2012, 18:33

I don't photograph as much a some of you guys posting here, but related to the original question, I find myself looking at a lot of photographs to see whether or not the photographer used camera movements.

It gets more and more distressing to me to see tabletop work, especially food work, done with 35mm style digital cameras with no camera movements. And the claim for the unsharp backgrounds and foregrounds always seems to be "creativity".
Yuk. Also too with a lot of ads that contain photographs of falling over or severely leaning buildings and trees in relation to everything else in the photo!

johnmsanderson

19-Sep-2012, 14:17

All the time.

Tajmul12345

26-Dec-2012, 03:50

I always used rise and front tilt.

welly

26-Dec-2012, 04:58

Use front rise and fall regularly, occasionally use shift movements and I'm starting to use tilts more these days as I begin to figure them out a little more.

ataim

26-Dec-2012, 10:32

have been tilting and swinging to distort the image more than to correct it lately.

Jonathan

Same as above. I use movements about 56.25% of the time.

BrianShaw

26-Dec-2012, 10:39

more or less; give or take, right?

Andrew Plume

26-Dec-2012, 16:17

well.........

pretty well all of the time

I'm fond of different abstract images, a lot of shift and swing and some tilt

andrew

Chuck P.

26-Dec-2012, 21:10

Just another 2 cents...............rise, fall, and shift movements are the ones that I will not hesitate to use, just a little bit here and there can really save time when it comes to basic "image management" stuff. Tilts and shifts? I first look to see if I can get away without them, but when it's called for, they'll definitely get used.

Bill Burk

26-Dec-2012, 22:57

Mark Barendt

27-Dec-2012, 04:48

rdenney

27-Dec-2012, 07:59

To answer the question, I rarely used movements when I used a real view camera.

I don't know if I was lazy or just happy with what I saw. As far as view cameras go, my Newton New Vue was not very easy to adjust. When I changed one movement it seems another movement shifted and I had to refocus.

So I found a camera without movements that suits me well.

As a former owner of a New Vue, I can well believe that using that beast would sour anyone on using camera movements. I learned on my architecture school's Linhof Kardan Color, otherwise the Newton (which was the best I could afford when I had to buy my own) might have soured me, too. I traded it for a Calumet CC-400--a breath of fresh air by comparison.

Rick "who chooses subjects based in part on the tools available" Denney

Mark Barendt

27-Dec-2012, 08:34

I still have the CC400 I started with and have fun occasionally turning it into a pretzel. ;)

Bernice Loui

29-Dec-2012, 00:01

Figure out the composition and focal lens length to use, level the tripod, level the camera, tune up the composition and add camera movements as required to bring the areas into sharp focus as expected/required. I'll use as much camera movement as required to allow the largest f-stop possible (usually less than f22 on 5x7).

Here is one example, original image is sharp from front to back. Image was made using a Schneider 110mm f 5.6 HMXL.

Camera movement(s) required depends on the specific image, it is just another image making tool offered by the view camera.

86218

Bernice

David_Senesac

29-Dec-2012, 10:05

I always use movements for color landscape work and print large. I used usual 35mm SLR and 6x7 for years so know the limitations of a usual perpendicular to lens fixed image plane. The way to get best image detail across an image plane for many situations and undoubtedly the reason most of us moved up to LF. If it were not for movements would have joined the DSLR legions years ago. Use a Wisner Expedition 4x5. Also have a G10 digital camera for smaller print closeup work where for most subjects, maximum depth of field is more important than tilt.

swmcl

4-Jan-2013, 13:58

In my journey as a photographer I started with 35mm and moved up. Now when the digital devices have caused the resources of the large format world to almost entirely disappear I need to know why I shoot LF. Surely, the camera's movements are the point of difference par excellence. To shoot without using movements is to make a large 35mm or medium format photo; something that is hard to justify given the abilities of digital cameras.

I will be making a conscious effort to attempt to use movements on each and every photo. In most distance shots (landscapes, architectural etc,) movements are easy to apply and the need will be pretty clear. Portraits are another matter.

JohnGC

7-Jan-2013, 20:20

I use movement on most photos. Not always necessary, sometimes just because I like to tinker with shots, and try different looks in the gg. I've think I turned my Wisner into a pretzel from time to time.

Joe Forks

9-Jan-2013, 05:21

Only when I need them, and depending on the subject. Rarely for portraits, but commonly for landscape I use tilt, and or rise or swing. Sometimes you can't put the tripod where you want it. Silly to have them, need them, and not use them IMO.

cosmicexplosion

9-Jan-2013, 05:42

I don't know how you could not use movements.

I was shooting a great wall of foliage on a beach that was swept back over by wind
it required about ten or so minutes of fine tuning to get it all in focus
using most movements in subtle amounts
luckily using a sinar

Darwinean_John

11-Jan-2013, 12:55

Hello from London - just joined, first post.

I evolved into LF (5x4) for the large negs (and prints) and movements.

I use movements nearly 100% time for :
- architecture; in landscape and portrait mode so use tilts, swings and rise / fall to manage placement of volume of acceptable focus and converging verticals
- landscape; mainly fine tilts, for fine control of the volume of acceptable focus and occasional rise/fall re converging trees

I haven't done much LF portraiture but looking to do some and expect to mainly use rise / fall and shift (with open apertures) to manage the placement of the thin slivver of focus plane on eyes / lips