Printable View
My question is what is the reason to have rear only movements on a view camera? I'm thinking of a camera like a Kodak 2D. I've always used rear tilt to straighten verticals but then have to also use the front tilt bring the front and rear back into parallel with each other for focus. It seems any rear movement would also need front movement to correct focus. Am I missing something?
Rear tilts and swings let you control the shape of objects, as you discovered! They also do Scheimflug, as do front tilts and swings.
I don't think that the" Kodak 2D" was not intended to be a do-all technical camera. I suspect that they were primarily used in routine studio portraiture.
I have used my 2D to do some nie work with table top compositions. To simulate front tilt, the whole csmera is tilted down and the rear standard is tilted back to vertical. Not ideal, but can be made to work.
I have been using a 5x7 Eastman View No.2 for awhile...rear tilt and swing and front rise/fall, all geared movements. One gets use to it.
One can get front tilt by tilting the camera down slightly, then tilting the back to vertical...but most of my images are landscapes and the verticals are rarely straight or otherwise not critical to get straight. If I need to I will tilt the back to mimic the effect of tilting the front lens forward, and a little more rarely, the back swing. I pay attention to the slight distortions of the image caused by these movements and they become part of the final image.
My other view cameras have both front and back tilt, and I do find having both is much easier. Adding front swing/tilt adds weight to the camera and possible sources of instability. Without front tilt and swing, the front can be very stable...and can hold heavier lenses, I suppose.
For parallel movements you raise or lower the front standard on a camera like that.
On my Century, I actually reversed the tilt-stops side-to-side to allow more backward then forward tilt. This was better for landscape photography. Any relationship between front and rear standard is possible with that camera (though some configurations are limited in degree).
Attachment 187114
I suspect that the reason for no front tilts was because they use up lens coverage quickly, where back movements do not. Early lenses like rapid rectilinears did not usually have the massive coverage of modern lenses.
You referring to base tilts, center tilts or asymmetric tilts?Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton
Hoi zäme,
1. you have a defined weight on the rear standard (standard, groundglass, film holder) whereas there could be different lenses plus the shutter on the front, that have different weight - which is why the front has to be sturdier than the back.
2. the movements on the rear standards are on the operator-side of the camera. This is usefull when using lenses with long focal length
3. moving the lens forwards or backwards implies changing of the magnificion ratio.
4. you can extend the focusing bed in one direction when focusing only one standard
5. when folding the camera the lens stays on its place (18x24 FKDs are quite small when folded)
6. when you tilt the camera down and the rear standard back you already have some shift downwards with your lens what is useful.
Tschau zäme
The only thing that determines the image projection is the relative position of front and back. "Correct focus" is simply where you want it. In theory, you can get the same plane in focus with front tilt, back tilt or both together. The image changes perspective with back movements, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by rich caramadre
You can use your pan/tilt head to position the "front tilt" and then compensate with the back. For a landscape where you want near/far in focus, tilt down a bit with the tripod head and then use back tilt to bring the back vertical (assuming you want it vertical) This would be the same as just using front tilt. Or use a bit of both. It's a bit more difficult working that way, though.
For keeping parallels straight, set up with the back parallel to the work and then use front rise (different than pointing and tilting, but the same result). This is actually easier than point/tilt.
The reason most older cameras don't have front tilts/swings is that they didn't get used that much with the lenses of the time, which had very little coverage, as mentioned above. Any tilt or swing at the lens stage (asymmetrical or whatever) points the lens off-axis and needs extra coverage to work; if your lens doesn't have any, then the image gets vignetted. Back tilts and swings stay within the projected cone of the lens unless rise/fall is used.
Best,
Doremus
Quite honestly I have never missed front movement on my 2Ds. Tilt camera down and use the back. Then again I very very seldom use it on my 4x5 F1 or calument NX. Assuming I ever clean off the area of the house I was planning to use as a little still life studio this will change.
You get used to working within the parameters of your camera.
Thanks for all the replys everyone. I've been using my deardorff's for a number of years. 8x10 and 5x7/4x5. I use front tilt quite often for near far focus and was just wondering how people handle that with a 2D type camera. Pretty much as I expected.
I am actually working through this issue also; I went out for my first outing with my newly-acquired 5x7 Eastman No. 2 field camera this past Friday. I tilted the entire camera forward, just slightly. I wanted to get the mountains in the background in focus, so I focused on them then tilted the rear backward very slightly to get the foreground in focus (focused on the far, tilted for the near). With the aperture at f/22, I thought the treetop would be in focus along with the rest of it, but it's very slightly out of focus there. Is there something better or more I should have done to get the entire tree in focus along with the mountains and the foreground?
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...2bbdc78a_b.jpg
Thanks, Allan
Lack of front movements allows for a sturdier and more robust front standard which then allows the use of large/heavy lenses (e.g., fast portrait lenses). Everything's a tradeoff. But, depending on your goals, being able to support large lenses could be an advantage. This is exactly why my Ansco Universal 8x10 is my keeper. To each his own....
I used to have a Kodak 2D 8x10 a few years ago, so I was keen on 2D accessories. I've seen 2D reduction lensboard adapters that include a smaller bellows and tilt. Very effective solution. For a 2D, it wouldn't be that difficult for an S. K. Grimes to make one of these adapters.
But as previous posts have suggested, it's possible to get the same effect by other means.
I use the Kodak 2D Eastman and Century 8x10 Field camera. They only have front raise/fall, and rear tilt and rear swing. I have been able to use them in landscape without any problem, tilting the camera and adjusting with the rear tilt. I have seldom notice a difference. When I shoot products is when I do like the 8x10 Intrepid, it has all the movements. The Kodak 2D is a great camera, very stable and with a long bellows that allows for the use of long lenses. I also have the 8x10 reduction to 5x7, a very useful thing.
These were taken with the Kodak 2D:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...d3162d9a_c.jpgTest-5x7 too by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...921ee7b7_c.jpgTest 5x7 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
Someone else already did it. I am working in making my own too. Using as a guide the one made by another maker, but with some different things to avoid a straight copy.Quote:
Originally Posted by neil poulsen
This is not an easy situation to take advantage of tilt, as tilting throws part of the tree farther out of focus relative to other parts of the tree. In your case, you probably used too much tilt. You could have used less tilt to just get the grass almost into focus, then used the f/stop to bring both the tree top and grass into focus.Quote:
Originally Posted by cobbu2
Or perhaps use the same amount of tilt, but focus a little farther out.
Some of this depends on the focal length of the lens, format of the camera, and the amount of enlargement required of the negative. If contact printing, a smaller aperature can easily be used (f45 or 64) and get everything within the needed depth of field. I prefer to let a tiny bit of sharpness go (due to diffraction or whatever) rather than not have the image focused as I want it...especially since any reduction in sharpness in a contact print due to using f64 rather than f22 will not be seen.
PS -- I have the 5x7 version of your camera, also.
I have a Chamonix 4x5 and 1925 5x7 Korona. I use the Chamonix when I need more movements and the korona when using heavy pre-Civil War lenses.Quote:
Originally Posted by William Whitaker
Kent in SD
What you're missing is that with front rise and fall, which the 2D has, you can replicate front tilts at the rear.Quote:
Originally Posted by rich caramadre
Thanks Vaughn... I think you're right in that I concentrated a little too much with the back tilt; that tree was the middle object of the scene and with a combination of a little less back tilt and stopping down another stop (or two) would have made the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaughn
I really enjoyed using this camera the other day, the controls are easy to use and everything is quite sturdy, I can see why the basic design is so popular.
Cheers, Allan
Allan, I enjoy mine, too. Quite the eye-catcher, too.