Technique for focusing "into your scene"

[GRAYnomad]

Good tips, I also use, including tiny flashlights for corners

In our Post-Reality Photo Art era, I am going to include my markers occasionally

as they are Truth

Yeah for dark images I've used a flashlight as well, works a treat. Dunno about leaving it in the shot though

[AdamD]

I have a coach/teacher I like to use as well as this forum. One of the first things he said was, all 4 images were not a good candidates for using any kind of tilt. The simple reason is that the highest nearest object protruded up from the bottom of the image (top of the GG downward) by 20%. You can see in all 4 images I have that going on.

This rule (and fact) pisses me off because everywhere I shoot I will have that problem!! After I complained about that for a while he just laughed at me. That made it worse.

Fact is, I hate to admit it, but he's right. As a result of tilting, I caused areas in the middle to be soft.

Anyway, he walked me through a lot of composition problems and made me answer a lot of hard questions that I didn't have any good answers for.

No one in this forum told me this shit is hard!!!! LOL. Ok that's not true. But it's still fun and makes me really appreciate that this is a marathon and I'm on mile 7 (maybe).

Thanks for the tips!!

[Michael R]

I told you to get the Stroebel book.

One thing people often don’t get right when they are taught to tilt and swing - while tilts and swings are useful for changing the orientation of the plane of sharp focus, they decrease depth of field. When you tilt your front standard forward, your depth of field is now a wedge-shaped space extending forward from the camera.

I have a coach/teacher I like to use as well as this forum. One of the first things he said was, all 4 images were not a good candidates for using any kind of tilt. The simple reason is that the highest nearest object protruded up from the bottom of the image (top of the GG downward) by 20%. You can see in all 4 images I have that going on.

This rule (and fact) pisses me off because everywhere I shoot I will have that problem!! After I complained about that for a while he just laughed at me. That made it worse.

Fact is, I hate to admit it, but he's right. As a result of tilting, I caused areas in the middle to be soft.

Anyway, he walked me through a lot of composition problems and made me answer a lot of hard questions that I didn't have any good answers for.

No one in this forum told me this shit is hard!!!! LOL. Ok that's not true. But it's still fun and makes me really appreciate that this is a marathon and I'm on mile 7 (maybe).

Thanks for the tips!!

[Doremus Scudder]

I have a coach/teacher I like to use as well as this forum. One of the first things he said was, all 4 images were not a good candidates for using any kind of tilt. The simple reason is that the highest nearest object protruded up from the bottom of the image (top of the GG downward) by 20%. ...

I'm not so sure I agree with the "20%-rule." As I mentioned, I'd have certainly used some movements in the image I discussed. Besides, not all "foreground" objects are equal. If your foreground is really close, and you have a vertical object, then that does, indeed, limit the effectiveness of movements. However, if your "foreground" is 20 feet from your camera, then the situation is different.

Also, I tend to use a bit of forward tilt in a lot of architectural shots, where "common wisdom" says that you don't use tilts at all. Often, I can save a whole stop's worth of depth of field.

The proof of whether or not movements can more optimally place the plane of sharp focus is in the focus spread. If you can apply movements and reduce the focus spread between "near" and "far" points, then the movements are doing some good.

If I'm in doubt as to whether movements are helping, that's what I do.

BTW, the Leslie Stroebl book that Michael refers to is the Bible AFAIC. It takes some study time, but is well-worth the effort. That's how I learned.

Best,

Doremus

[Michael R]

Doremus, regarding your architecture/small forward tilt example, fun “possible factoid”, I have it on good authority Ansel Adams did this for the well known vertical aspens picture as the light had faded substantially by the time he had set up for it. Off topic but anyway.

Michael

I'm not so sure I agree with the "20%-rule." As I mentioned, I'd have certainly used some movements in the image I discussed. Besides, not all "foreground" objects are equal. If your foreground is really close, and you have a vertical object, then that does, indeed, limit the effectiveness of movements. However, if your "foreground" is 20 feet from your camera, then the situation is different.

Also, I tend to use a bit of forward tilt in a lot of architectural shots, where "common wisdom" says that you don't use tilts at all. Often, I can save a whole stop's worth of depth of field.

The proof of whether or not movements can more optimally place the plane of sharp focus is in the focus spread. If you can apply movements and reduce the focus spread between "near" and "far" points, then the movements are doing some good.

If I'm in doubt as to whether movements are helping, that's what I do.

BTW, the Leslie Stroebl book that Michael refers to is the Bible AFAIC. It takes some study time, but is well-worth the effort. That's how I learned.

Best,

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

If I had to think through everything mentioned so far on this thread, it would appear the shortest distance between two points is a convoluted maze. Fortunately, that Stroebl book does include pictures. It ain't all that complicated after a bit of practice. ... And for the record, when I use view cameras, movements are involved about 98% of the time. They exist for a reason.

[Michael R]

I’m surprised you use movements nearly all the time for non-studio work, although I assume that includes rise/fall/shift. For my pictures I use those a lot, but rarely tilt/swing.

If I had to think through everything mentioned so far on this thread, it would appear the shortest distance between two points is a convoluted maze. Fortunately, that Stroebl book does include pictures. It ain't all that complicated after a bit of practice. ... And for the record, when I use view cameras, movements are involved about 98% of the time. They exist for a reason.

[Oren Grad]

I've been at this game for 25 years now. It's been many years since I last used any swing or tilt. The kinds of pictures I take have things sprouting all over the place, and the main effect of applying non-parallel movements is to introduce distracting focus artifacts.

I think the emphasis on movements as the hallmark of large format photography is unfortunate and a disservice to beginners. They are not a general solution to depth-of-field problems; they're a specialized tool for specialized situations.

[John Layton]

Not with emphasis...but to see it as part of the whole - that movements are but one of our many tools which, when used intelligently, thoughtfully, and with intention...can be great allies in helping us to get to the heart of what moves us. No more, no less.

[AdamD]

I told you to get the Stroebel book

Michael R, I bought the book.