Precisely it, "to create the envisioned photograph." Drives lens choice, camera choice, image recorder choice, post camera and most every other aspect of the print or image making process.
Better to know what to achieve then figure out how to achieve it.
Bernice
Originally Posted by grcouch501
Group f64 was NOT an official Ideology-Doctrine, it was much a revolt against Pictorialism with long enduring influences on Photography to this day.
Some of this influence appears in the design goals of modern LF view camera lenses that have been optimized for f22 and such. Small format camera lenses that are mandated by market forces (Sharp, Sharp, Sharp, Sharp and Contrasty) which are rooted in the belief sharper IS better.
_and much more.
In ways it was a very GOOD thing for Group f64 to revolt against Pictorialism as it opened up an entirely different style of creative image making in remarkable ways.
IMO, they are ALL mere tools or means to achieve a given image goal. More tools, means and knowing precisely how to best apply them works great towards achieving envisioned image goals.. which is what creative_expressive image making should be much about.
Bernice
As far as I know, LF lenses are optimized for f/16-22 or thereabouts because that's the natural sweet spot where lens aberrations are minimized and diffraction degradation is still negligible. Designing a lens to have fewer aberrations at wider apertures would be more expensive and, often, require a larger maximum aperture. More of a compromise between practicality and economy than a nod to the Group f64 and their aesthetics.
Plus, there was (and is still, used) a wide selection of LF lenses for all kinds of different purposes, including soft-focus, ultra-sharp and contrasty and everything in between. Pick the lenses that fit your style and vision.
And, FWIW, having everything in the photograph sharp enables a more natural appreciation of the subject IM-HO. Visual perception is a composite of the scans made by the eye, first focusing here, and then there, over a startlingly long period of time (the latest research points to retained perceptions at times as long as 15 seconds). Our impression of a scene, therefore, is one of overall sharpness because we've scanned near, far and in-between. Having everything sharp in a photograph allows our eye to dart about the image and realize a similar overall impression.
Sure, judicious use of out-of-focus areas can lead the eye to a particular spot in the photograph, but often, it does just the opposite and those areas become annoying distractions from the main subject matter that one's eye just can't get free of. No one expects painters to paint large out-of-focus areas in their work to "imitate the way the eye sees...". Using selective focus grew out of the optical limitations of the photographic medium. Before photography, painters never used it and few do now. Impressionistic painting tried to imitate the movement of water and leaves and the play of light thereupon, but that isn't really out-of-focus; more like motion blur, which is, incidentally, the way our eye and visual perception works.
Declaring the aesthetic of having everything sharp in a photograph "dead" is a bit premature. If true, I'll happily labor among the deceased.
Doremus
What image style-goals would this lens set be applied to?
Indeed, "everything" in the image "sharp" is FAR from dead (not LF, same applies).
More a question of what any given image is to achieve or express or ... (not LF, same applies).
Not a lot other than just another tool to be applied image making.
View camera methods should not be limited by accept norms and practice conventions as this becomes a creativity and expressive potential limiter.
At this point in the image making days, the whole thing about idealized lens performance, best lens and all that has been parked on the image making road side long ago.
Bernice
As far as I know, LF lenses are optimized for f/16-22 or thereabouts because that's the natural sweet spot where lens aberrations are minimized and diffraction degradation is still negligible. Designing a lens to have fewer aberrations at wider apertures would be more expensive and, often, require a larger maximum aperture. More of a compromise between practicality and economy than a nod to the Group f64 and their aesthetics.
Plus, there was (and is still, used) a wide selection of LF lenses for all kinds of different purposes, including soft-focus, ultra-sharp and contrasty and everything in between. Pick the lenses that fit your style and vision.
And, FWIW, having everything in the photograph sharp enables a more natural appreciation of the subject IM-HO. Visual perception is a composite of the scans made by the eye, first focusing here, and then there, over a startlingly long period of time (the latest research points to retained perceptions at times as long as 15 seconds). Our impression of a scene, therefore, is one of overall sharpness because we've scanned near, far and in-between. Having everything sharp in a photograph allows our eye to dart about the image and realize a similar overall impression.
Sure, judicious use of out-of-focus areas can lead the eye to a particular spot in the photograph, but often, it does just the opposite and those areas become annoying distractions from the main subject matter that one's eye just can't get free of. No one expects painters to paint large out-of-focus areas in their work to "imitate the way the eye sees...". Using selective focus grew out of the optical limitations of the photographic medium. Before photography, painters never used it and few do now. Impressionistic painting tried to imitate the movement of water and leaves and the play of light thereupon, but that isn't really out-of-focus; more like motion blur, which is, incidentally, the way our eye and visual perception works.
Declaring the aesthetic of having everything sharp in a photograph "dead" is a bit premature. If true, I'll happily labor among the deceased.
Doremus
We'll labor together......
Declaring the aesthetic of having everything sharp in a photograph "dead" is a bit premature. If true, I'll happily labor among the deceased.Doremus
Sharpness: sharp or not, in focus or not, all-over, or isolated....image making considerations.
One use of sharpness/focus is to encourage the viewer to take in the Place in a way the artist wishes them to. All very subtle. Everyone will work out their own rationale for how they work. I tend to think along the lines that we see the world as an ongoing gestalt...constantly shifting our focus, pupil size and view to form a good over-all, all-over focus, and contrast-controlled motion picture in our heads (excluding the extremes of the ranges -- leave that to digital).
To allow the viewer's eye to feel comfortable entering and remaining within the image, I want the viewer to feel they have already spent the time to mentally create the gestalt mentioned above (everything sharp and good contrast)...that they are acclimated to the Place, and they are ready to explore visually within the image. I am talking about the first few milliseconds of the viewer's attention. But sometimes I make them get their feet wet, too. And I don't always want them to be comfortable.
To bring this around to the OP, that first glace at an image of a building is important. Distortion or a 'unnatural' perspective shift is a good tool
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Laboring among the dead, while not intrinsically a source of wisdom, can not, I believe, be rejected if one truly wishes to pursue wisdom. This is as true in the sciences as the arts (which should not actually be separated anyway); something about reinventing the wheel.
And what treasures are there to be discovered!
Philip Ulanowsky
Sine scientia ars nihil est. (Without science/knowledge, art is nothing.)
www.imagesinsilver.art
https://www.flickr.com/photos/156933346@N07/
Originally Posted by grcouch501 View Post
... I'd say your post was incredibly helpful! Lots of good information there, and I'm glad that my observations with the 90mm lens are on point. My Cambo SC2 has axial tilt/swing movements and I'll be sure to give the three point focus technique you mentioned a try next time I'm in the field. I think I'll be switching back to the near-far focusing method after reading the responses to this thread. ...
The near-far focusing method is the correct choice for your camera. It would be the opposite if it were a base operating system. Some cameras like the Toyo Robos have both which gives you a choice which to use. f16-f22 are the sweet spots for 4x5 lenses, for 8x10 you can go up to f32 without worrying about diffraction.
Thomas
This app for Windows allows you to see DOF for 4x5 (.1mm COC) and other sizes or you can pick the COC you desire.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Let's be sure to make the distinction between using "focus points" to apply movements and then using "focus points" to focus the camera for optimum depth of field and aperture.
For the former, we need two or three focus points that lie in the desired plane of sharp focus. Then swings and/or tilts are applied until all the chosen points are sharp. Note that with axis swings and tilts, the three-point system I described earlier works quickly and easily. For base tilts only two points are needed, but refocusing and refining of the movements is almost always necessary (unless you just get lucky with the initial setting). With asymmetrical movements, a two-point approach also works well, but you have to make sure one of the focus points lies on the asymmetrical axis. A three-point approach would also work; one on the axis and one each on either side of the axis.
Note that all of the above is not "focusing the camera," rather just applying tilts/swings effectively.
For focusing the camera for optimum depth of field and aperture, the "near-far" method is both reliable and effective. One also needs focus points for this technique, but not points that lie in one plane of sharp focus. Rather one chooses points at the nearest and farthest distances from the plane of sharp focus that one wants to be acceptably sharp in the final print (print size plays a role here; more later). So, two points are needed. One focuses on one, notes the relative position of the standards on the focusing rail/camera bed, then focuses on the second and notes the distance difference between the two positions. Using this focus spread, one consults a table that gives the optimum aperture for that focus spread. This "optimum aperture" is the best compromise between the effects of defocus and diffraction.
The table is calculated using a desired Circle of Confusion (CoC) or Airy Disk (the former being the out-of-focus disk that grows the more out-of-focus the image is, the latter being the (very similar) disk that grows the more diffraction degrades the image focus). For scenes with very large focus spreads, which require very small apertures for the desired depth of field, the size of both the CoC and Airy Disk end up being relatively larger on the negative. This means that in order to preserve a desired size for the CoC/Airy Disk in the final print, such a negative cannot be enlarged to such a great extent as a negative made from a scene with a much smaller focus spread that requires an aperture that is closer to the optimum aperture for the lens (usually f/16-22).
The whole method is thoroughly discussed in-depth and tables given in the article on the LF homepage here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html .
Note also that the "near-far-focus-spread" method is only one way to focus the camera. Visual methods work fine too as does hyperfocal focusing, using DoF tables, etc. I really like near-far though...
Best,
Doremus
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks