Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Scheimpflug, Swing, & Architectural Photography

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Oregon now (formerly Austria)
    Posts
    3,063

    Re: Scheimpflug, Swing, & Architectural Photography

    Quote 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. ...
    I use, like and recommend the near-far method of focusing and choosing the optimum f-stop described on the LF homepage here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html .

    Best,

    Doremus

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,236

    Re: Scheimpflug, Swing, & Architectural Photography

    The Linhof Large Format book's ISBN#
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Linhof LF book_ISBN.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	35.0 KB 
ID:	224725


    Bernice

    Quote Originally Posted by zone View Post
    Thanks for link and the scan; have you the title of the book ? I would search an version better and maybe i found a copy for buy.
    Thanks.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,236

    Re: Scheimpflug, Swing, & Architectural Photography

    f32 is NOT a panacea for "sharpness".

    Every lens has a single plane of actual focus, that is the only plane that is actually "sharp" on the film or imager plane. As the lens aperture is reduced, depending on the lens, some of the lens aberrations (spherical abb, coma, distortion, light fall off, and ..) can improve. At reduced lens aperture size the improvements in lens aberrations reduction peaks, after the peak lens performance begins to drop off then diffraction takes bite. Or, why f22 is the great view camera lens equalizer. By f32, that aperture becomes a diffraction-vs- perceived in focus-vs-lens performance trade off.

    What is in perceived focus due to lens aperture size reduction is known as Depth of Field_Depth of Focus, neither is or ever will be as sharply focused as what the true lens focus plane is located at. Moral of all this text, more ya shrink the lens aperture a lens performance cost will be extracted.

    This is where the advantages and capabilities of a GOOD view camera and Optics can make a very real difference. By applying the camera movements as needed to shift the actual lens focus plane into a location where it is needed and most effective allows using the largest lens aperture for the needed areas of perceived to be in focus_sharp (DOF/F). Or why shrinking down the lens aperture only as much as needed and within the optional lens performance aperture range will result in better images.

    Once the doctrine of all in the image is discarded, other lens personality areas like out of focus rendition in to out of focus rendition and much more. Trying for all in the image to be in apparent focus places different requirements on the lens design as these two have different image goals.


    Bernice


    Quote Originally Posted by grcouch501 View Post
    I'll usually stick to f/32 when shooting 4x5 just to make sure I'm maximizing sharpness across the frame. I've already got the tripod out so might as well take advantage! When things warm up I'm hoping to get out and shoot some nature/landscapes where I can really push the limits and experiment with more drastic camera movements.

  4. #14
    Greg grcouch501's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    15

    Re: Scheimpflug, Swing, & Architectural Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    f32 is NOT a panacea for "sharpness".

    Every lens has a single plane of actual focus, that is the only plane that is actually "sharp" on the film or imager plane. As the lens aperture is reduced, depending on the lens, some of the lens aberrations (spherical abb, coma, distortion, light fall off, and ..) can improve. At reduced lens aperture size the improvements in lens aberrations reduction peaks, after the peak lens performance begins to drop off then diffraction takes bite. Or, why f22 is the great view camera lens equalizer. By f32, that aperture becomes a diffraction-vs- perceived in focus-vs-lens performance trade off.

    What is in perceived focus due to lens aperture size reduction is known as Depth of Field_Depth of Focus, neither is or ever will be as sharply focused as what the true lens focus plane is located at. Moral of all this text, more ya shrink the lens aperture a lens performance cost will be extracted.
    My lenses are all Nikkor (90mm f/8, 150mm f/5.6, & 240mm f/5.6) and I've had difficulty finding concrete performance data online about them, including at what aperture diffraction becomes detrimental. My usual source of performance data, DXOMARK, is obviously useless when it comes to large format. For example, I know my F mount 14-24mm f/2.8 lens performs best around f/5.6. My benchmarks, unless I need reduced DoF or a faster shutter speed, are f/8 for 35mm, f/11 for 6x6, and f/32 for 4x5. Sounds like I might want to dial that back to f/22...

    Given the types of subjects I shoot, I generally aim to get most of the image in apparent focus. I honestly haven't noticed much difference in my V800 scans of buildings shot at f/22 vs f/32, but I also don't make large darkroom prints where the optical degredation might be more apparent. I have the easiest time pre-visualizing DoF with 35mm, but I struggle somewhat with 4x5.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,236

    Re: Scheimpflug, Swing, & Architectural Photography

    Nikkor LF lenses, much the same as Rodenstock, Fujinon, Schneider from the same era. They are all more similar than different. In the harsh real world of LF image making, optimum lens aperture is far less meaningful and useful than what the image goals are. For images where majority of the image is in "focus" this is where camera movements can be of great aid. It takes LOTs of practice, experience, understanding with piles of resources consumed to get good at this view camera stuff which includes controlling what is and what is not in apparent focus in the image.

    Know modern view camera lenses (Nikkor, Schneider, Fujinon, Rodenstock) are typically best at f16 to f32, margins being f8 to f45.
    Use the largest lens aperture with camera movements as needed to achieve the what must be in focus goals instead of focusing on the optimum aperture The lens has been "designed" for. Learn to "check out" the in focus areas with the lens stopped down, camera movements applied as needed. Typically a 7x loupe on the GG works good for this. Don't rely on stopping the lens down alone and hope for what is needed to be in perceived focus to be in perceived focus.

    Two self deception bits of information that can and will easily deceive and trap one's want to believe with lenses. Many of those published MTF curves are calculated, not measured from YOUR specific lens sample. This means while there are +/-% tolerances for lens production, what is published might not directly apply to your specific lens on camera. Only way to get to know a specific lens personality, use it lots and develop a proper relationship with that lens. If the relationship is not working out, time to move on.

    As for scanners, yet to meet a scanner that delivers the same optical performance as a high quality microscope. This is effectively "pixel peeping", optical LF style.
    https://www.largeformatphotography.i...420-microscope

    "Sharp enough", ponder how could any of this techno-centric stuff make your image superior?


    Another factor that has an effect on lens to film image performance is dimensions from ground glass to film in film holder. Previously discussed, could be of zero relevance to your specific camera, but worth verifying, if you're into this.
    https://www.largeformatphotography.i...f-ground-glass

    Then there is film flatness in the film holder. A problem that grows with growing sheet film size.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Sinar AD film holder.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	75.5 KB 
ID:	224740

    Majority of images made, this is not that important, for some images it can be significant.


    Bernice







    Quote Originally Posted by grcouch501 View Post
    My lenses are all Nikkor (90mm f/8, 150mm f/5.6, & 240mm f/5.6) and I've had difficulty finding concrete performance data online about them, including at what aperture diffraction becomes detrimental. My usual source of performance data, DXOMARK, is obviously useless when it comes to large format. For example, I know my F mount 14-24mm f/2.8 lens performs best around f/5.6. My benchmarks, unless I need reduced DoF or a faster shutter speed, are f/8 for 35mm, f/11 for 6x6, and f/32 for 4x5. Sounds like I might want to dial that back to f/22...

    Given the types of subjects I shoot, I generally aim to get most of the image in apparent focus. I honestly haven't noticed much difference in my V800 scans of buildings shot at f/22 vs f/32, but I also don't make large darkroom prints where the optical degredation might be more apparent. I have the easiest time pre-visualizing DoF with 35mm, but I struggle somewhat with 4x5.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Oregon now (formerly Austria)
    Posts
    3,063

    Re: Scheimpflug, Swing, & Architectural Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by grcouch501 View Post
    My lenses are all Nikkor (90mm f/8, 150mm f/5.6, & 240mm f/5.6) and I've had difficulty finding concrete performance data online about them, including at what aperture diffraction becomes detrimental. My usual source of performance data, DXOMARK, is obviously useless when it comes to large format. For example, I know my F mount 14-24mm f/2.8 lens performs best around f/5.6. My benchmarks, unless I need reduced DoF or a faster shutter speed, are f/8 for 35mm, f/11 for 6x6, and f/32 for 4x5. Sounds like I might want to dial that back to f/22...

    Given the types of subjects I shoot, I generally aim to get most of the image in apparent focus. I honestly haven't noticed much difference in my V800 scans of buildings shot at f/22 vs f/32, but I also don't make large darkroom prints where the optical degradation might be more apparent. I have the easiest time pre-visualizing DoF with 35mm, but I struggle somewhat with 4x5.
    I'll add my comments to Bernice's.

    Most LF lenses have "optimum" sharpness at f/16-f/22. Wider than that, and lens aberrations degrade the image; smaller than that and diffraction degrades the image.

    That said, the degree of degradation one or two stops either way from the optimum is often so small that it is not visible in the final print, especially if the degree of enlargement is not great. Furthermore, image concerns may take precedence over overall sharpness. I'll opt for desired depth of field over diffraction degradation any day. I have 4x5 negatives made at f/45 that print excellently at 11x14 and fine at 16x20 as long as the viewer isn't examining the print with a loupe. Yes, I can see diffraction degradation in the larger print, but often the image is strong enough to overcome the lack of perfect acutance. Sharpness is just one image parameter and it can be sacrificed for the sake of other, more important, ones if warranted.

    FWIW, my most used aperture with 4x5 is f/32 or thereabouts (a third of a stop one way or the other). I enlarge routinely to 16x20; in most of my prints, a magnifier is needed to see all the detail available.

    As for "pre-visualizing depth of field": I never stop down and view the image on the ground glass at taking aperture (heresy, I know...). I have calculated the circle of confusion I want as "standard" and figured out print size limitations for situations where I have to stop down more than necessary to get that CoC. So, I just figure out where I want the limits of my depth of field to be, choose focus points, note the amount of focus spread (in mm) between those two points and then consult my table to find the optimum aperture. Rarely do I have a situation where things are noticeably out of focus in a print that I wanted to be sharp and then, only in really extreme situations (usually I'm aware of areas at the extremes that will be rendered less than sharp and plan my image around that if needed). I'm really, really confident that the apertures I'm using are the optimum for the situation I have in front of the camera and the image I want to make. Also, FWIW, I never open up more than f/22 or f/16 (the optimum aperture, depending on the lens I'm using), even if I can; optimum is optimum.

    As for finding the optimum apertures for your lenses: look at the lens specs in the catalogues (I think you can find old Nikkor LF catalogues online easily). The aperture they list for the coverage specifications (image circle) is the optimum aperture.

    Best,

    Doremus

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,236

    Re: Scheimpflug, Swing, & Architectural Photography

    Example of how different each of us use-apply a view camera. Doremus favors using f32 as a means to achieve what is needed to meet the image goals. Key here is applying f32 or similar to meet the image goals.

    Early on in this LF journey it was much about the Group f64 everything in focus ideology-doctrine. With the passage of time burning piles of sheet film and being influenced by artist friends the Group f64 ideology-doctrine died. Some time in the 90's image making with a view camera became tied to image making common to smaller image formats and cinema, discarding the Group f64 everything in focus ideology-doctrine. This move grew into greater creative and expressive potentials all cameras have. Essentially, that Group f64 everything in focus ideology-doctrine becomes too limiting. Going beyond selective focus and being aware of lens out of focus rendition and in to out of focus rendition is the universe of LF sorta-focus lenses (soft focus lenses) which has it's origins in Pictorialism the very ideology-doctrine Group f64 seek to erase from the photographic world, yet these specialized soft focus images lived on often in the portrait world.

    Lens sets are divided up into wide angle which are all modern "Biogon" types. As these offer the best overall WA optical performance.

    Once into the "normal" focal lenghts, the lens set is divided into large taking aperture and small taking aperture, with the dividing aperture being about f16.

    Large aperture lenses will typically be f4.5 Kodak Ektar, f4.5 Xenar or f3.5 Heilar or f6.3 Kodak Commercial Ektar. This lens set is used for images that will have out of focus areas combined with pleasing out of focus rendition and pleasing in to out of of focus rendition.

    Lens set for f16 to f45 will typically be Goerz Dagor, Goerz APO artar, Rodenstock APO ronar or a modern plasmat ala Sironar-Symmar or similar, depending on image contrast needs. The modern plasmats work good for images goals with as much of the image in perceived focus "sharp" combined with higher image contrast. The Dagor has image personality and surprising image circle for it's size stopped down to f22 and smaller. The APO artar. APO ronar tends to produce way high resolution images with lower contrast than a modern plasmat. Choice is driven by image goals partly driven by lens aperture needed to achieve the image goals.

    Longer than normal focal length are majority APO artar or APO ronar with full apertures of f9 to f14. Their working aperture can be full aperture (not often) with f22 to f45 being common. Exceptions are the Tele design lenses like f5.5 Tele Xenar often used at full aperture to about f16.or 500mm f9.5 Tele Congo (6x9_2x3 only) used at f11 to f45, most common f16 to f32.

    Add to this, the set of Sorta-Focus lenses of normal to slightly more than normal focal lengths... where "sharpness" is not "it" at all.


    Taking lens aperture and the specific lens needed to achieve the image goals. There is no single ideal LF lens, just trade-offs that becomes not a lot more than a tool needed to get it did.

    Bernice



    Quote Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder View Post
    FWIW, my most used aperture with 4x5 is f/32 or thereabouts (a third of a stop one way or the other). I enlarge routinely to 16x20; in most of my prints, a magnifier is needed to see all the detail available.


    Best,

    Doremus

  8. #18
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    8,690

    Re: Scheimpflug, Swing, & Architectural Photography

    I will just add the the f64 Group NEVER had a "everything in focus ideology-doctrine".

    That just an easy thing for others to hang their hats on.
    "Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China

  9. #19
    Greg grcouch501's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    15

    Re: Scheimpflug, Swing, & Architectural Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder View Post
    I'll add my comments to Bernice's.

    Most LF lenses have "optimum" sharpness at f/16-f/22. Wider than that, and lens aberrations degrade the image; smaller than that and diffraction degrades the image.

    As for finding the optimum apertures for your lenses: look at the lens specs in the catalogues (I think you can find old Nikkor LF catalogues online easily). The aperture they list for the coverage specifications (image circle) is the optimum aperture.
    Thanks for the tip Doremus! I actually have a Nikkor catalog saved but I wasn't aware that the value listed for the coverage specifications was also the optimum aperture. The information I was looking for was right under my nose this whole time...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    Example of how different each of us use-apply a view camera. Doremus favors using f32 as a means to achieve what is needed to meet the image goals. Key here is applying f32 or similar to meet the image goals.

    Taking lens aperture and the specific lens needed to achieve the image goals. There is no single ideal LF lens, just trade-offs that becomes not a lot more than a tool needed to get it did.
    I think that's the key - it all comes down to picking the right combination of aperture, shutter speed, and movements to create the envisioned photograph. Luckily I have a whole box of 4x5 Ilford FP4 Plus just waiting to see the world, and I've certainly learned some valuable information in this thread. Thanks for all the input!

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    SooooCal/LA USA
    Posts
    2,579

    Re: Scheimpflug, Swing, & Architectural Photography

    One plus with some lenses stopped down into the diffraction zone is there is usually a "peak" of sharp focus somewhere that may not match the OOF areas, but by stopping down too much (sometimes), it will give entire frame a slight (but equal) blur that can equalize focus "look" across frame...

    Many lenses are so sharp somewhere, one often has some "sharpness to burn"...

    Super high resolution lenses often have what I call "the dirty layer" which is fine enough resolution to start resolving dirt, soot etc on surfaces like white marble etc, but can severely "jump" out of focus just out of focus distance, making it difficult to pull even focus in depth... Older lenses that are more limited in resolution tend to even this somewhat (smoother focus)...

    Look at early last century master photo prints up close while they are hanging sometime, and you will see many are not so sharp on the surface!!! Back up to proper viewing distance, and they "pop" nicely!!!

    "Sharpness" can be a little overrated by still photographers, where in cinema, image sharpness is often toned down with lenses, filters etc, especially now with high-resolution viewing systems that can be brutal to subjects (flesh, object smoothness etc)...

    Experiments using lenses stopped down too much/little can have interesting effects for different types of images, worth trying sometime...

    Steve K

Similar Threads

  1. Photoshop for architectural photography
    By mark.s in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 28-Oct-2013, 22:27
  2. Lenses for Architectural Photography
    By Mark_Se in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 9-Jan-2009, 17:20
  3. Architectural Photography and film
    By Anthony Lewis in forum Business
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 16-Mar-2007, 10:31
  4. architectural photography
    By miguel_5607 in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 15-Jun-2005, 21:44
  5. architectural photography on new US stamps
    By Oren Grad in forum On Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16-Jan-2005, 19:41

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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