# Thread: Importance of back movements

1. ## Re: Importance of back movements

Originally Posted by Bob Salomon
Not quite, it depends on the camera. Some, like Sinar, use two points for their assymetricc tilts. If they are not the lines you want you. Need to rise/fall to make them lie on those points.
Other, like LInhof. Have continuously variable assymetric tilt points.
If the axis line doesn't fall on the far distant point I want to focus on, I first use rise/fall on the front to line up the axis line where I want to do the main distance focus. Then I shift the rise/fall on the front standard back to where I want to frame the shot and tilt the back for the near focus point. Is that right?

2. ## Re: Importance of back movements

Originally Posted by Alan Klein
If the axis line doesn't fall on the far distant point I want to focus on, I first use rise/fall on the front to line up the axis line where I want to do the main distance focus. Then I shift the rise/fall on the front standard back to where I want to frame the shot and tilt the back for the near focus point. Is that right?
Yes, with a Sinar. No with a LInhof.

3. ## Re: Importance of back movements

These axis lines (and imaginary planes) work IF the actual and accurate lines can be determined, precisely measured, accurately-precisely placed relative to all objects involved, camera placement, lens specifics and a very, very, very long list of real world realities that work in the highly controlled theoretical and math sphere. Add to this, items being imaged are typically 3D, then squashed flat into 2D onto the film. Point being, know how camera movements affect theGG image, essentially what camera movements and how much does what to the GG image. Learn and keep in mind camera movement effects on the GG image thus film image and apply them as needed. The complex math and camera marketing features claimed become of little if any value where the item to be imaged to the GG them film means little if the image maker does not fully understand how camera movements affect the GG image then to film image.

~Best way to learn, set up the camera and lens and contort-wrestle the camera as needed then watch what happens on the GG. Others can gain an intuitive sense for what camera movements do (after initial visual and related input), then figure out what and how to apply camera movements as needed to achieve the image on film as needed.

~What IS important, to have good control over camera movements, both front and rear standards MUST have identical range of movements (shift, rise-fall, swing, tilt, focus _ all combined, yaw free is of lesser importance unless time allowed to implement combined camera movements are absolutely essential). Couple this with lenses that have sufficient image circle permits a wide variety of image making capabilities.

As for distortion of buildings to be photographed, if geometry accuracy is needed, use a longer than normal focal length lens. Zero the camera, position the camera using the GG image, then tweak using the GG grid lines as needed. Levels are useful as a relative position indicator, not absolute position indicator.

5x7 Sinar, 19" APO artar from a distance, shift-rise-fall applied due to limits on camera position and need for geometrical accuracy.

Bernice

Originally Posted by Alan Klein
If the axis line doesn't fall on the far distant point I want to focus on, I first use rise/fall on the front to line up the axis line where I want to do the main distance focus. Then I shift the rise/fall on the front standard back to where I want to frame the shot and tilt the back for the near focus point. Is that right?

4. ## Re: Importance of back movements

Originally Posted by Vaughn
I am not talking about all the four-letter H-words as this is not an architectural photography thread, but about making images of/with (or without) buildings, too.

We see the world as a distortion, we look up at a building and it 'keystones' -- that fact can be taken into consideration when creating images, as it can affect how the viewer sees, reacts, and/or interprets the image.

There is zero technically wrong about keystoning or using other types of distortion in photography. They are techniques.
There is always distortion in photography. A man once showed Picasso a photograph of his wife to show what she looked like. Picasso replied, "Oh, is she that small and flat?"

Like most techniques for doing anything, there are technically right ways and technically wrong ways to use view camera movements. Keeping the front and rear standards plumb and using front rise and fall is the technically right way to photograph buildings without introducing distortion.

Anyone should of course use whatever technique gives them the result they want, but I'd stand by learning to do it technically right before intentionally doing it technically wrong, if only to understand and defend the decision.

5. ## Re: Importance of back movements

Originally Posted by Mark Sawyer
Any back movements will cause keystoning, a big no-no in serious architectural documentation. Front and rear standards should always be plumb. Just use rise/fall to center the building as needed.
Who made that a rule? That only applies if you want the plane of sharp focus to fall on the face of the building you are photographing.

Keeping the front and rear standards parallel and plumb works for many cases, but, often enough, I've found that a little front tilt allows a more optimal placement of the plane of sharp focus in situations where there is a lot of foreground, the building is rather distant, and there are foreground objects that you want to be in sharp focus. And yes, keystoning is undesirable in much architectural work; that's why the back has to be plumb and parallel with the verticals in the building to avoid it. Still that doesn't exclude using front tilt at all, if it helps.

Originally Posted by Mark Sawyer
Tilting the front will tilt the lens' axis and the flat plane of focus that used to be coincident with the film plane.
That's the whole point of using front tilt If tilting the plane of sharp focus results in less focus spread and allows me to use a more optimum aperture to get the depth of field I need, I tilt. If not, I don't. Simple as that.

Best,

Doremus

6. ## Re: Importance of back movements

Here's a digital capture of a shot I did today with my 4x5, My Chamonix has asymmetrical tilts allowed with the rear standard. Your comments appreciated.

Camera standards all started at default positions and leveled. Plumb, etc. My camera was too high so the first thing I did was to lower the front standard to get the wheel into the picture.

My camera has asymmetrical using the rear standard. Normally the read standard is just to tilt. In this case I did the following:

So first I focused on the axis line (green) where the X is in the white window. I then swung the rear standard so the right side was further away and the left side closer to help with the angle of the wall receding on the left. I played with the focus and angle a couple of times until it seemed it was all in focus. Then I tilted the front forward just a bit to help with the focus of the wheels where the x is on the blue line.

7. ## Re: Importance of back movements

Strictly speaking, this is not technically correct. It is a convention.

Originally Posted by Mark Sawyer
There is always distortion in photography. A man once showed Picasso a photograph of his wife to show what she looked like. Picasso replied, "Oh, is she that small and flat?"

Like most techniques for doing anything, there are technically right ways and technically wrong ways to use view camera movements. Keeping the front and rear standards plumb and using front rise and fall is the technically right way to photograph buildings without introducing distortion.

Anyone should of course use whatever technique gives them the result they want, but I'd stand by learning to do it technically right before intentionally doing it technically wrong, if only to understand and defend the decision.

8. ## Re: Importance of back movements

Originally Posted by Alan Klein

Camera standards all started at default positions and leveled. Plumb, etc. My camera was too high so the first thing I did was to lower the front standard to get the wheel into the picture.
This is the correct thing to do if you want to keep parallel verticals in the scene parallel on the film. Pointing the camera down with the pan/tilt head on your tripod would result in keystoning, i.e., converging verticals; in this case converging toward the bottom of the image.

Originally Posted by Alan Klein
My camera has asymmetrical using the rear standard. ... In this case I did the following:

So first I focused on the axis line (green) where the X is in the white window. I then swung the rear standard so the right side was further away and the left side closer to help with the angle of the wall receding on the left. I played with the focus and angle a couple of times until it seemed it was all in focus. Then I tilted the front forward just a bit to help with the focus of the wheels where the x is on the blue line.
Here's where I'm not quite sure what you did. If you were using asymmetrical swings, your axis lines should be vertical; you've got horizontal axis lines in your illustration, so they don't quite jibe with your description...

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by swinging the back so that "the right side was further away and the left side closer." Closer to what is the question: Closer to you? Or closer to the scene?

If you were trying to get the plane of sharp focus aligned with the plane of the barn wall, then you would swing the back farther from parallel to the plane of the wall, i.e., in the opposite direction that you would swing it to make it closer to parallel (God, this is hard to describe clearly; maybe someone else can give me a better choice of words?)

Remember, if you want to align the plane of sharp focus with a subject plane, "the lens looks, the back 'backs away'."

I'm assuming that's what you did; brought the plane of sharp focus to align with the plane of the wall. This brings the wall into better focus, but causes horizontal parallel lines to converge (you're moving the back in relation to the subject, hence image perspective changes).

If, however, you swung the back the opposite direction, i.e., in the direction of more (or completely) parallel to the barn wall, you are ensuring that horizontal parallel lines will be rendered parallel (or more so) on the film. But, doing this moves the plane of sharp focus at an even more oblique angle to the wall of the barn, so if you want some to keep it all in sharp focus, you need to compensate with front swing; moving the plane of focus back in alignment with the barn wall. You'd do this by swinging the front standard in the opposite direction you swung the back.

Hope that all makes sense,

Doremus

9. ## Re: Importance of back movements

Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder
This is the correct thing to do if you want to keep parallel verticals in the scene parallel on the film. Pointing the camera down with the pan/tilt head on your tripod would result in keystoning, i.e., converging verticals; in this case converging toward the bottom of the image.

Here's where I'm not quite sure what you did. If you were using asymmetrical swings, your axis lines should be vertical; you've got horizontal axis lines in your illustration, so they don't quite jibe with your description...

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by swinging the back so that "the right side was further away and the left side closer." Closer to what is the question: Closer to you? Or closer to the scene?

If you were trying to get the plane of sharp focus aligned with the plane of the barn wall, then you would swing the back farther from parallel to the plane of the wall, i.e., in the opposite direction that you would swing it to make it closer to parallel (God, this is hard to describe clearly; maybe someone else can give me a better choice of words?)

Remember, if you want to align the plane of sharp focus with a subject plane, "the lens looks, the back 'backs away'."

I'm assuming that's what you did; brought the plane of sharp focus to align with the plane of the wall. This brings the wall into better focus, but causes horizontal parallel lines to converge (you're moving the back in relation to the subject, hence image perspective changes).

If, however, you swung the back the opposite direction, i.e., in the direction of more (or completely) parallel to the barn wall, you are ensuring that horizontal parallel lines will be rendered parallel (or more so) on the film. But, doing this moves the plane of sharp focus at an even more oblique angle to the wall of the barn, so if you want some to keep it all in sharp focus, you need to compensate with front swing; moving the plane of focus back in alignment with the barn wall. You'd do this by swinging the front standard in the opposite direction you swung the back.

Hope that all makes sense,

Doremus
The top green line is of course on the bottom of the GG and is the asymmetrical line representing the axis. My first focus was with that line where the X is in the white window. I then swung the back standard so the physical right side of it was moved closer to me and the left side further away from me. I was attempting to get the whole wall from left to right in focus but according to your comments I did the opposite. Is that true?

In any case, how would you have handled this disregarding the cameras asymmetrical features?

10. ## Re: Importance of back movements

Originally Posted by Alan Klein
The top green line is of course on the bottom of the GG and is the asymmetrical line representing the axis. My first focus was with that line where the X is in the white window. I then swung the back standard so the physical right side of it was moved closer to me and the left side further away from me. I was attempting to get the whole wall from left to right in focus but according to your comments I did the opposite. Is that true?

In any case, how would you have handled this disregarding the cameras asymmetrical features?
Alan,

It seems you're making a fundamental conceptual error here (from what I gather, at least).

Swings revolve around a vertical axis, not a horizontal one. The green line in your illustration is horizontal, and would be an axis for tilts, not for swings.

If your camera has asymmetrical swings as well as tilts, there should be axis lines on the ground glass or at least registration points somewhere on the camera.

To repeat: you can't swing around a horizontal axis.

On to the swings: It seems you did the correct thing to get the barn wall plane in sharp focus, i.e., swinging the back farther from parallel to the wall in order to use the Scheimpflug principle to position the plane of sharp focus onto the plane of the barn wall. (All this should be/have been obvious on the ground glass.)

Just to recap, though: To use the Scheimpflug principle to position the plane of sharp focus onto a plane at an oblique angle to the film plane, you can either a) swing or tilt the lens closer to parallel with the image plane, b) swing or tilt the back farther from parallel from the image plane, or c) use a combination of the two. Hence the mnemonic: "The lens looks; the back 'backs away'."

Swinging the back parallel to a wall when that wall is at an oblique angle to the film plane ensures that the parallel horizontal lines on the wall will be parallel in the image, but it goes in the opposite direction of a Scheimpflug adjustment. Therefore, you'd have to swing the lens stage parallel to the wall as well to ensure sharp focus on the entire plane of the wall. Note that this effectively ends up giving you shift.

To your last question: Without asymmetrical capabilities, you'd still use the same movements to get the proper relationship between lens plane and film plane. In this case, front or back swing (in the proper direction for Scheimpflug) to get the wall in focus. I'd swing the back if I wanted to emphasize the convergence; the front if I didn't (or, alternatively, I'd swing the back parallel to the wall to get it square, level and plumb and swing the lens parallel as well to preserve focus - I use all three of these variants regularly as well as combinations of them). The only difference is that without asymmetrical movements, I'd have to do a couple of iterations of re-focusing and re-positioning the movement. The only thing asymmetrical movements do is save you a little time if you know how to use them quickly and the image lines up easily with your axis lines. The basic movements stay the same.

Best,

Doremus

#### Posting Permissions

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