Yep. Don't even go there if you haven't practiced tilts first. Don't even come here if you haven't. We have plenty of flat farmland of our own, between the mountain ranges; and much of it is very interesting photographically. Then there are vast deserts areas too. Doesn't get any flatter than a dry Ice Age lakebed. But frozen alpine lakes impose the same depth of field logistics, and I've sure done my share of those.
With a receding plane, and by approaching it using appropriate tilts, the "scene" you are "focusing into" becomes a continuum. There is no single point at play, like with a fixed position lens and film plane. The whole game actually becomes simplified, once you get accustomed to it.
Good point, Michael. Once one gains experience and bends the bellows a few times into a knot, learns what the camera movements can do, and that sort of thing, that experience and knowledge allows one to see possibilities otherwise missed.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Yes, stopping down more would increase the depth of field "above" and "below" the plane of sharp focus.
But there are two other choices which might or might not help improve the situation (as I mentioned above). The amount of tilt, and the where you choose to focus, both/each rotate the plane of sharp focus along with that entire depth of field (the area between the red lines). So for example if that wedge was rotated downward a little more, by tilting more or focusing differently or usually a combination of both, the depth of field would include more of the yellow area. Of course you'd have to check to make sure the top of the building was still within the depth of field, maybe decide to stop down more etc. but you get the idea.
You can see that there is often more than one answer and it involves some judgement (in addition to checking things on the groundglass). You can also see that while you can "optimize" to some extent, it's still a compromise. For example, suppose you really wanted the building in perfect or near-uniform focus. You might decide to focus on the building, use less tilt, or no tilt etc. (I could do another diagram if you want).
The point is with practice/repetition this becomes a more intuitive process - as both Drew and Vaughn can vouch for. It will become more "routine" when you stand before a scene, to decide what to use as your near/far points of focus when figuring out your tilt or swing (and sometimes you'll find you're better off not tilting/swinging), choose your aperture etc.
I have many 30x40 prints from various commercial scans, and the detail and quality output with apertures between f32 nd f45 is incredible, assuming I have implemented proper technique otherwise. Especially with LF, I don't concern myself with diffraction, but obtaining the shot envisioned. So most of my images end at somewhere around F45 (as insurance). Taking more than one image at different F stops allows you the flexibility of throwing out the one which has insufficient DOF. For color chromes, obtaining correct exposure is key since these films have very little latitude. In those cases I will also vary exposures with different sheets to ensure I have a good one.
BTW Alan, check out Franklin Parker Preserve in SC New Jersey as a possible sight for image taking. Via Chatsworth. I just happened upon it venturing the net for Pine Barrens bog sites. I am considering it for my trip in early July.
PD
P.S. I am reminded of both Stella Johnson and Sebastiao Salgado, for example, both of whom used Leicas and would stop down the lens well into diffraction territory to get as much in focus as possible. Many of their images are indelibly imprinted in my mind.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Bookmarks