Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Problem obtaining adequate depth of field with field camera

  1. #21
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North GA Mountains
    Posts
    8,924

    Re: Problem obtaining adequate depth of field with field camera

    Bob, I'm not sure if you are actively arguing with me or just restating what I'm saying and acting like I didn't say it. Do you actually think I don't know how keystoning works? Re-read what I've written.
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram | Portfolio
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Loganville , GA
    Posts
    14,409

    Re: Problem obtaining adequate depth of field with field camera

    Quote Originally Posted by Corran View Post
    Bob, I'm not sure if you are actively arguing with me or just restating what I'm saying and acting like I didn't say it. Do you actually think I don't know how keystoning works? Re-read what I've written.
    Yes, I don’t think you know. Or can’t express it correctly.

    I have no idea how old you are, how long you have been using movements, what your photographic education is. But I have used large format since 1960 and graduated photo school and taught classes at the university level. Besides having been the mLinhof,Wista and Rollei product manager since, depending on the company, since 1970.
    To put it in simpler terms. The orientation of the film, back, determines image shape.

  3. #23
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    9,211

    Re: Problem obtaining adequate depth of field with field camera

    For many years I would point the camera down (or up) and then get both standards perpendicular to the ground...then do any tilting of the front I might need to do.

    Don't know why it took so long for me to realize that it was basically the same as setting the camera all level and just dropping the lens down. And, of course, the opposite-way around (using front rise instead of pointing the camera up).

    Such is life in the fast lane. I can also remember tying the camera in knots before finally re-zeroing and keeping it simple. Most of all that is figured out now before I even set the camera up, with occasional surprises, thankfully. All my attention can be on the image...not on the mechanics unless I want to.
    "Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China

  4. #24
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North GA Mountains
    Posts
    8,924

    Re: Problem obtaining adequate depth of field with field camera

    Exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Salomon View Post
    The orientation of the film, back, determines image shape.
    As I said, multiple times.
    Last edited by Corran; 16-Apr-2020 at 17:01.
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram | Portfolio
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

  5. #25
    Small town, South Carolina, US
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    494

    Re: Problem obtaining adequate depth of field with field camera

    What is missing in these discussions is "the plane of the back relative to the subject."

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Loganville , GA
    Posts
    14,409

    Re: Problem obtaining adequate depth of field with field camera

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post
    For many years I would point the camera down (or up) and then get both standards perpendicular to the ground...then do any tilting of the front I might need to do.

    Don't know why it took so long for me to realize that it was basically the same as setting the camera all level and just dropping the lens down. And, of course, the opposite-way around (using front rise instead of pointing the camera up).

    Such is life in the fast lane. I can also remember tying the camera in knots before finally re-zeroing and keeping it simple. Most of all that is figured out now before I even set the camera up, with occasional surprises, thankfully. All my attention can be on the image...not on the mechanics unless I want to.
    So, you went from indirect displacements to direct displacements.

  7. #27
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    New Jersey was NYC
    Posts
    2,580

    Re: Problem obtaining adequate depth of field with field camera

    I just started with a Chamonix 45H-1 which has asymmetrical back standard only. You focus on the far point on the asymmetric axis line then tilt the back to focus the front point and the far point stays in focus. If the far point isn't on the line, you can use rise to get it there, focus, then move the rise back to where it was.

    Of course you can use the traditional way using the front standard. But that require a number of iterations to get it all in focus.

    Anyone have experience with this and have recommendation to improve the process?

  8. #28
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    9,211

    Re: Problem obtaining adequate depth of field with field camera

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Salomon View Post
    So, you went from indirect displacements to direct displacements.
    Exactly -- I was adding another level of complexity that was not needed by going indirect. Of course, if one has a lens of huge coverage, one might want to use both (indirect displacements/direct displacement) to increase the usable front rise, for example. Interior mechanical vignetting becomes an issue (bellows, etc).

    Generally with my landscapes I let the image determine level and the needs for any back tilt. Sometimes the image calls for trees to be leaning inwards (or outwards) from both sides and sometimes for them to be nicely vertical across the back of the image. And sometimes 'level' does not look level, so why be normal? Setting up for an image in the forest can be challenging...a lot of time having fun under the darkcloth. With the image below, I spent a bit of time standing there, moving a few inches either way, maybe a foot, getting the world to line up in the light.

    But in the end, nothing like setting the camera up and seeing how things show up on the GG, and have fun messing with it, like the OP is doing.

    Bull Creek Redwoods, Light Rain Falling, 4x10 Pt/pd Print:
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails BullCr2.jpg  
    "Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Oregon now (formerly Austria)
    Posts
    3,397

    Re: Problem obtaining adequate depth of field with field camera

    The relation of the film plane to the subject determines the projection perspective - period.

    The relation of the film and lens planes determines the position of the the plane of sharp focus in the scene - period.

    There are many ways to position the film plane. The most obvious is how you set up your camera. From there, you can use back swings and tilts. The parallel verticals in the scene don't know if you've set up your camera with the back parallel to them or whether you've used tilt to bring the back parallel to them.


    For the OP:
    You need to learn the basics of the Scheimplug principle. In a nutshell, the film plane, the plane perpendicular to the lens axis (think lensboard plane) and the plane of sharp focus all intersect in a line somewhere in space (in the ground below your feet when you use front tilt). Think of a book with one page: the the page being the lens plane, the covers being the film and subject planes.

    So, in your case, try to visualize the three planes, back, lens and subject, and position your tilt accordingly. In practice, one chooses two points on the plane, one near and one far, and plays around with the tilt till both points are sharp.

    Once you've done it a time or two, it gets easy.

    Best,

    Doremus

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire UK
    Posts
    1,090

    Re: Problem obtaining adequate depth of field with field camera

    Looks like I've missed the latest episode of the 'Bob and Bryan show' - I have a feeling that another episode may be screened shortly

    Andrew

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 21-Jun-2012, 08:13
  2. Obtaining adequate depth of field
    By Andrew Bennett in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 1-Sep-2011, 10:08
  3. Depth of Field, Depth of Focus, and Film Flatness
    By steve simmons in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 7-Jan-2006, 19:30
  4. Depth of Field, Depth of Focus, and Film Flatness
    By robc in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 6-Jan-2006, 14:44
  5. Depth of Field calculation in the field
    By Don Wallace in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 31-Oct-2004, 16:54

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •