How Too Much Tilt Can Tilt the Beginner's Brain

[Bernice Loui]

f64 aka "Group f64" is more Foto ideology _ methodology than real world lens performance.

Unless contact prints are made, which f90 can be acceptable in many ways, there is about zero reason to use f64 as a taking aperture.
Modern view camera lenses are typically optimized at f22, typically good at f11 to f32 then f45 as the smallest reasonable taking aperture.

These pages from the Linhof view camera book was scanned some time ago then posted as a camera movement guide for those new to this view camera stuff.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ong-amp-Linhof


Majority of the view camera image made almost always used some degree of camera movement, even if they are small. Reason for this is to force the taking aperture to be as large as possible while holding what is needed to be in perceived focus.... in sorta-focus. Know only what the lens is focused at will be in focus, all else is the perception of being "in focus". This is why properly applying camera movements are SO very important this view camera stuff. Simply stopping down should never be the cure all for the image goal of perceived to be in focus.

As for Ansel Adams images, stop by the Weston gallery in Carmel, CA to have a gander at some of their AA prints and others. Consider their work as examples of what has been and was done instead of an emulation goal.
https://www.westongallery.com/


Bernice

In my case, the picture I had hoped for was not really within the capabilities of the lens. The depth-of-field I wanted would have required an f/ stop of about 64, and even if I had had it marked on my lens, the diffraction would have surely taken the edge off the crisp Ansel Adams look I was imagining.

[Vaughn]

I use every movement my camera is capable of for every image...I just use most of them zeroed out most of the time.

Early on, I'd tie the 4x5 cameras in knots until in frustration I'd zero everything out, start again, and end up using a slight bit of tilt and/or swing.

[Bernice Loui]

Typical landscape image does not require vast or large view camera movements. Do begin with the camera movements zero_ed, then apply tiny amounts of camera movement as absolutely needed with the lens at full aperture. Check what is in "focus: with the lens stopped down to the taking aperture to check for taking image being ok.

Far too easy to over apply view camera movements causing vast grief.


Bernice

[Alan Klein]

He sure as hell did enlarge a number of those negs to 40X60's, or have them enlarged under his supervision at a more adequately equipped pro lab. F/64 was the name of the movement; and they often stopped down further than that! But until his later years, AA didn't have anywhere near the level of camera precision or lens quality we routinely expect today. "Fine-grained" films back then are what we would call buckshot today. "Fast" emulsions back then used a cable release connected to a Carbon 14 clock on the other end. So no, his big enlargements (really only 6X from 8x10 film) are really quite mushy unless one backs away quite a bit when viewing the print.

I never personally like to stop down 4X5 lenses more than f/32; with 8x10, f/64 is equivalent, though I prefer not to stop down more than f/45 if contemplating a 4X enlargement (8X10 to 30X40 inch). That's because viewers really do get nose-up to even my larger prints. If the detail is there, it pulls them in. Leave that "normal viewing distance" nonsense to outdoor advertising companies and the Marlboro Man, who looks perfectly sharp on a billboard thirty feet across from a normal viewing distance of a quarter mile.

What I do with medium format is to calculate what I calculated I need in DOF, then stop down an extra stop for good measure. Now that I'm also shooting LF, I'm following others' prescriptions basically using f22 unless I think I need more, then go to f/32 as you said.

[Alan Klein]

Typical landscape image does not require vast or large view camera movements. Do begin with the camera movements zero_ed, then apply tiny amounts of camera movement as absolutely needed with the lens at full aperture. Check what is in "focus: with the lens stopped down to the taking aperture to check for taking image being ok.

Far too easy to over apply view camera movements causing vast grief.


Bernice

Basically what I do. Also, my camera, a Chamonix 45H-2, has asymmetrical focusing using the back standard only which is helpful sometimes depending on what you need to focus on. It gets complicated if the focus points are not on the asymmetrical line. Then you shift the standard, focus, and return the standard back to the right framing.

[r.e.]

What I do with medium format is to calculate what I calculated I need in DOF, then stop down an extra stop for good measure. Now that I'm also shooting LF, I'm following others' prescriptions basically using f22 unless I think I need more, then go to f/32 as you said.

I think that most "serious amateurs" use aperture when shooting 35mm or medium format to control depth of field. There's no reason not to do the same thing with 4x5.

One of the big issues with video, especially with a micro four thirds camera like the Blackmagic Pocket 4K, is control over depth of field. It's also an issue with smartphones, where makers like Apple are specifically trying to address this problem.

[John Layton]

Jeesh...there are still times when this old (but non beginners) brain gets a bit twisted about with movements - at which point I just need to stop...and zero out both my camera and my old brain!

[Drew Wiley]

One problem with larger f-stops is the fact that most film holders simply don't hold the film all that flat. A smaller stop helps. The other fact necessitating smaller stops as well as often movements is that the world does not exist on a single flat plane. That might be possible on a studio table setup; but the real world often involves all kinds of image plane contradictions. No, shooting outdoors might not involve some of the extreme view camera contortions involved shooting inside a cramped bathroom or kitchen for an architectural magazine, for example. But there are plenty of reasons to have those movements outdoors too. And when it comes rise, no downtown skyscraper on earth brings the same degree of problem as being close up to some great peak face, with no room to back away. So I have no idea what a "typical landscape image" means; but it sure doesn't sound like anything I've been doing for the past fifty years. If I need extreme movements, I use em; if I need only minor movement, that's what I do. But one thing I don't ever do is go with some "one shoe size fits all" formula. .... Now let me get back to hanging a 30X40 inch print which wouldn't exist if I hadn't applied extreme tilt.

[Vaughn]

I had the same thought when I read 'typical landscape image'. Once I see the image I want, set the camera up, and get it on the GG, I'll have a pretty good idea of any focusing/DoF issues that I'll have, and with a quick meter-reading, what exposure time and aperture constraints I will have in creating the image. Some of these factors I will already know before setting up the camera, but the GG can bring confirmation...and surprises, too.

Especially with lenses of minimal coverage, I will also check the clipped corners of my GG to see if my use of movements will require a smaller aperture to insure coverage.



The rest of my time is spent under the darkcloth fooling with any movements I feel needing to be fooled with...and working with the image on the GG. Once I have focus/movements where I think/see they should be. I close down the aperture slowly and look for when all areas on the image come into focus at about the same f/stop (rinse and repeat)...then close down a couple more stops (to correct for eye-sight, film flatness, phase of moon, etc). My Fuji W 300mm has f90 for a reason.

[Alan Klein]

I think that most "serious amateurs" use aperture when shooting 35mm or medium format to control depth of field. There's no reason not to do the same thing with 4x5.

One of the big issues with video, especially with a micro four thirds camera like the Blackmagic Pocket 4K, is control over depth of field. It's also an issue with smartphones, where makers like Apple are specifically trying to address this problem.

With 4x5, which I'm relatively new to, I've been told to rely on tilt, where applicable. So I've just gotten used to leaving it at f22 unless I think I need more DOF. Then I switch to f32.

Regarding smartphones, there's less issue with DOF because they use wide-angle lenses and small sensors with a huge depth of field. The issue with them is to get less DOF for portraiture.