In architecture for avoiding falling back buildings is the rise of the lens recommended only for the fact that more camera have front rise or is it a difference to back rise?
Lets say I have a tower. It fits entirely in the circle of the lens but I want to cut away the foreground (street, asphalt). Does it make a difference if I rise the lens or if I make the cut by moving around my film area?
Moving the back down is the same as moving the front up.
With most cameras you cannot move the back down. Therefore, moving the front up (rise) is only available way.
Back rise is the same as front fall. Some cameras don't have any back rise or front fall, but you can use front shift with the camera on its side.
Just to make things more complicated
As has been pointed out, since the projected image on the film is upside-down, you'd have to use back fall to get the same effect as front rise.
If your camera had back fall, the effect would be approximate and, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from front rise at the usual working distances.
However, moving the lens does change the viewing position of the camera. The closer you are to something, the more difference it will make. This is similar to parallax with rangefinder and twin-lens reflex cameras. At normal working distances, the parallax is inconsequential, but with close-up work, it becomes a problem, because the taking lens is seeing from a different viewpoint than the viewing lens. With a view camera, however, the change in viewpoint is readily apparent on the ground glass and camera position can easily be lowered to compensate if needed.
Another way to think about it: When moving the lens, you are repositioning the "projector." When you move the back, you are repositioning the "screen."
Practically speaking, most cameras have a lot more front rise available than back fall, if back rise/fall is available at all, so the go-to movement for the situation you describe is front rise.
Best,
Doremus
Yes, turn my 4x5 Tachi on its side, and presto:Originally Posted by ic-racer
• Front rise/fall converts to front shift
• Front swing converts to front axial tilt
• Back swing converts to back axial tilt
My Tachi’s manual doesn’t acknowledge these movements, but I do!
The great degree that small changes in lens position can have on composition always amuses me, sometimes astonishes me.
The same with small changes in the tripod’s location.
Much depends on image making needs. As previously mentioned, the GG image is upside down-reversed. In architectural photography of tall structures, one of the most common camera movements is front rise to prevent/stop vertical structure lines from converging/distorting/being non-parallel. Rear rise does essentially the opposite of front rise due to the GG image being reversed and upside down.
How much camera movement is needed depends on the structure to be imaged, image circle limits of the lens and movement limits of the camera.
There can and will be image making needs where the camera does not have enough rise front and rear combined, but the lens has plenty of image circle.
In in this specific case, tilting the camera up to the angle needed then adjust the front and rear standard tilt to being parallel enough then fine adjustment on the GG image using the GG grid. Front-Rear rise/fall can be used to fine tweak the image as needed.
Majority of field folders do not have rear rise/fall as this is a camera movement not often if ever needed for outdoor images made at near infinity. Due to the construction type/method of field folder cameras, rear rise/fall could be a very not-so-easy feature to make and offer in a fiend folder.
Bernice
It's about the image circle, and how the camera can move (and frame) within it... (Same lens IC, different movements available...)
Not talked about much, as most cameras don't have rear fall, but yes, it's like front rise...
Steve K
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks