Technique for focusing "into your scene"

[Tin Can]

I like the old perspective control enlarger advertisements, showing extreme tilts in 2 dimensions

I have tried that a few times

and don't now

I am not buying the app
https://www.snapi.org/tilt-calculator/

[Heroique]

My point simply was, and remains, that they are of much narrower utility than is usually implied, and in particular, that they are not a general solution to depth of field problems, and that it is a disservice to convey to beginners, either explicitly or by omission, that they are.

Naturally I’m curious about who’s responsible for this disservice to beginners. Are you referring to well-known authors, workshop instructors, or maybe online experts? I mean the people who are implying to beginners that movements have wider utility than they actually do. Is there a concrete example you can offer? Quoting or paraphrasing this misleading language and identifying the source would be helpful and revealing.

[Corran]

Every LF beginner I have ever known and most new practitioners on this site do exactly as one would expect when presented with their first opportunity to use movements - overuse them. Oren is 100% correct. I read Adams' 'The Camera' cover-to-cover and did the same thing, used too much tilt/swing in my first images. Of course this isn't Adams' fault, it's the natural propensity of newbies to think movements are a magic panacea to all the DOF problems in the scene.

What's that saying - when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail? Of course this tendency is even more apparent after 20 different people give their personal opinion over 6 pages of forum posts on how best to utilize movements - ignoring the fact that they have years of experience, may not shoot the same subjects, or have very different needs in their photos. Heck, I've shot a lot of film with movements that further reduce DOF for effect.

Most of my tilts would not even look like tilts if you saw a picture of the camera in use - while in books, the illustrations often show extremely exaggerated movements to illustrate the point. We should strive to not over-sell the use of movements in every shot and/or extreme tilts/swings as a cure-all for DOF.

[William Whitaker]

i need a t-shirt with this printed on it.

+1!

8-)

[William Whitaker]

Close the books [websites...], load some film, go out and shoot! So sorry that Polaroid is no more... What a great learning tool that was!
But use the camera and practice, practice, practice. You will find your path. And it will be the right one... - for You.
Books and theories are great. But for learning, hands-on is the way to go!

[ic-racer]

How does one detect over-use movements? You the only thing I can think of is this effect below. Do all beginners still do this, I thought the fad wore off. In terms of rear rise, fall, or shift, how would one detect that they over shifted? Like how would you know the photographer's suspected unachieved intent?

[Vaughn]

...For my taste, special techniques are usually most effective when they don't call attention to themselves...

I agree, I just do not think swings and tilts are "special techniques". Point and shoot LF cameras are the 'special' ones.

And in learning -- it is always good to take things too far. Twist that camera up! Find out what it does and back-up if you need to. Then one learns how much movements an image may or may not need.

I taught 4x5 camera use for years to new students. To tell students to not use the movements, not to experiment and not to take things too far would be a great dis-service to the students.

[Benjamin]

Every LF beginner I have ever known and most new practitioners on this site do exactly as one would expect when presented with their first opportunity to use movements - overuse them. Oren is 100% correct. I read Adams' 'The Camera' cover-to-cover and did the same thing, used too much tilt/swing in my first images. Of course this isn't Adams' fault, it's the natural propensity of newbies to think movements are a magic panacea to all the DOF problems in the scene.

What's that saying - when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail? Of course this tendency is even more apparent after 20 different people give their personal opinion over 6 pages of forum posts on how best to utilize movements - ignoring the fact that they have years of experience, may not shoot the same subjects, or have very different needs in their photos. Heck, I've shot a lot of film with movements that further reduce DOF for effect.

Most of my tilts would not even look like tilts if you saw a picture of the camera in use - while in books, the illustrations often show extremely exaggerated movements to illustrate the point. We should strive to not over-sell the use of movements in every shot and/or extreme tilts/swings as a cure-all for DOF.

I think a lot of people like me, who are "newbies" in large format but have a long experience in 35mm or medium format photography, come to large format because of the possibility of movements but understand that they don't simplify things but are an added degree of complexity. None of my first photos have tilts or swing because I want to see what the DoF problems are before I attempt to see how I will solve them.

This is why I don't see threads like this like an invitation to swing and tilt like crazy, but rather as a way to better understand the possibilities of the instrument I have in my hand and how they differ from those of the 35mm of the 6x6 TLR I had in my hand yesterday.

Photography is like maths - all about problem-solving: for some stuff I may only need a pencil; for others, I will need a compass, and I'll have to understand when, and how the blasted thing works.

[Corran]

Well like I said, everyone I know personally and many on this site I have seen go in thinking they need more movements than necessary for DOF. Of course they should try it and experiment/practice - never would I say otherwise. I also personally work with a lot of younger people who may or may not approach things differently than many here.

About comparisons to math - I will reiterate what I said on page 1, throw out the math. It's mostly irrelevant. I know you were making an analogy but I really dislike the tendency for photography to become a numbers game - with all kinds of equations and other stuff standing in the way of SEEING. But perhaps that's another thread.

[Oren Grad]

Like how would you know the photographer's suspected unachieved intent?

I cannot know a photographer's unverbalized intent. Ultimately all I can say is whether something works for me.

Some of this debate is really about what kinds of effects should be considered desirable, but that's a matter of context, purpose and subjective taste, not of absolute rules.