Which first Rear Movement and Asymmetrical Tilt Chamonix 45F2

[Alan Klein]

This makes sense to me. So, I I am really wanting to increase emphasis on a foreground/or background element using rear tilt, then I must use the traditional iterative focusing methodology vs the asymmetrical. If I am understanding correctly.

Yes that;s correct.

Also, it may be easier to use the iterative front tilt method if the asymmetrical lines don't line up with the focus points you're interested in. That saves the time to raise and lower the front standard to line them up and return to capture position.

[Alan Klein]

I think we're overcomplicating things for the OP. Let me take a stab at oversimplification

Asymmetrical tilts and swings are simply axis tilts/swings with the axes displaced off-center. Using them is very similar to using axis movements.

In the specific case of back asymmetrical tilts, one chooses a distant object that lies in the desired plane of sharp focus and focuses that on the corresponding axis line on the ground glass (bottom of gg in this case). The back is then tilted around that axis until a foreground object that lies in the desired plane of focus is in sharp focus on the other axis (or reference) line.

*** complication ahead! ***
In theory, that should be all it takes to apply the movement. If the camera is designed well, the asymmetrical tilt/swing lines on the ground glass will be exactly where the actual axes are for the movements, so no refocusing should be needed once the initial focusing has been done. That said, camera engineering is rarely that precise and fine adjustments of focus are often needed.

Once you have applied the movement to your satisfaction, then focusing comes into play. There are a number of different methods of focusing the view camera. If you've placed your plane of sharp focus with the movements on points that you want to focus on, then you're basically already done with focusing. The trick now is to find an f-stop that gives you the depth of field you desire. That's another can of worms, so I'll leave that for another thread.

If you want to apply other movements, that can be done before or after applying the asymmetrical movements depending on which movements you use. If you apply front rise/fall or lateral shift on the front standard, then no refocusing will be needed; you can do these movements before or after applying your asymmetrical rear tilt or swing. However, if you want apply rear swings in addition to asymmetrical tilts, or or raise/lower the back, then you should apply those movements before the tilts, since you'll displace the ground glass and change the focus. Front swings added to rear tilts can be done before or after the tilts, but you'll need to check focus if you swing your original focus points out of position.

The real issue with back tilts/swings is the changes they make in the image. Front tilts/swings do not do this. If you tilt the back back (i.e., the top of the back toward you), you'll make foreground objects appear larger and distant objects appear smaller. If that's what you're trying to do, great, but many times, this is undesirable (e.g., keeping vertical lines parallel in a building, etc.). In this case, it is better to position the camera back to give you the perspective rendering you want and use the tilts/swings on the front standard.

May I suggest that you read the articles on the LF Homepage about focusing the view camera and choosing the f-stop. Once digested, they will help immensely.

Best,

Doremus

With the Chamonix 45H-1 I have, the axis is about 1/5 of the way from the bottom. Often in a landscape, that line is in the sky where you don;t want to focus or really can't becasue there's no object to focus on. So you have to lower the standard to get the line let's say on the top of a distant tree. Then focus for distance. Then raise the front standard to the frame view you wanted and had originally.

So what do you do with the top line if that's not on the near object you want to focus with the back tilt?

[Mark Sawyer]

Respectfully, I checked the focus after doing the tilt and it didn't move. No refocusing was necessary on my Chamonix 45H-1. Which asymmetrical camera did you try that required refocusing?

On the Chamonix, the axis (hinge location) is below the frame. That's where it tilts from, so of course any tilt moves everything off the focal plane. The bottom of the frame near the hinges moves less, but all areas off the tilt axis move. And the tilt axis is outside the picture area.


Regardless, the best practice is rechecking focus after all movements have been dialed in.

[Tin Can]

LX Horsemen 4X5 and 8X10 have more than enough movements

Base tilts and center tilts, or whatever you call them

Studio camera http://www.photographyreview.com/pro...x5-camera.html

While looking for Horseman data I found Oren!

He is credited by B&H by explaining the many field variations

http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/LFN/C..._Horseman1.htm

Oren Grad

Thank you!






I have a catalog, extensive. I also have 2 LX

[dave_whatever]

Speaking as someone who owns and uses both the Chamonix models with rear asymmetric tilt (045F and 045H) and have used similar cameras that don't (Shen Hao, and Ebony RSW45), honestly the rear asymmetric tilt is LOADS faster than using front tilt, as it removes the iterative stages. If anyone out there thinks this is some sort of marketing gimmick with no real world application, well, this isn't my experience. I use it for literally every landscape image I use, with the exception of shots where I need to keep the rear standard vertical. When the Ebony models appeared with this feature a certain British landscape photographer described it as being the large format equivalent of autofocus, it was that easy.

What I will say is you have to understand the limitations. If there is no object on the tilt line that you want in focus (i.e. open sky) then it's not useful. If you shoot with a 120 back then the axis is probably out of shot entirely. And if you need to keep the camera back vertical for architectural reasons, or vertical trees, then it's not useful and you're back to using normal iterative front tilt. But for landscape images looking slightly downward with the horizon in the upper half of the image it is superb.

Getting back to the OP, you obviously can't use the rear tilt solely to adjust image geometry/perspective without impacting on focus, ju

[Bernice Loui]

As previously mentioned, depends on how much camera movement is involved. Rear tilt does alter image geometry. This is the baked in trade off, for outdoor land scape images, the typical amount of rear tilt used is likely going to be small which allows enough tolerance for alterations in image geometry. Alterations in geometry might not tolerable at all for in studio images with straight line geometric shapes ... like boxes..

Point being, rear tilt or swing is not always usable in for Bending the "plane of focus"... it is highly dependent on image need and generalizations are at best... generalizations..

As for asymmetric tilt being "loads" faster, that still depends on the skill and ability of the specific image maker. At best the camera is an aid for the image maker it still comes down to the skill and abilities of the image maker to fully utilize the tools (camera and such) to achieve their image goals.


Bernice

honestly the rear asymmetric tilt is LOADS faster than using front tilt, as it removes the iterative stages. If anyone out there thinks this is some sort of marketing gimmick with no real world application, well, this isn't my experience. I use it for literally every landscape image I use, with the exception of shots where I need to keep the rear standard vertical.

Getting back to the OP, you obviously can't use the rear tilt solely to adjust image geometry/perspective without impacting on focus, ju

[Bernice Loui]

Concept of asymmetrical tilt or swing is nicely illustrated in the Sinar info# 8..

Multi exposure sequence of the asymmetric rear tilt on a Sinar P, Sinar P has this same feature on the front standard..

https://dynewskiphotography.com/sinar-info-no-8/

Note the point/area of focus remains stable as the tilt movement is moved over it's range of movement. This is the idea/concept and goal of asymmetric tilt or swing, to hold a point/area in focus as the tilt or swing movement is applied.

Regardless of the asymmetric tilt/swing camera movement feature, applying camera movements remains a iterative process. At best asymmetrical camera movements can aid or ease the application of these camera movements IF properly applied and used with a full understanding of how it does with it does..


Bernice

[Tin Can]

SINAR Model C just to add confusion

I have owned and used all this, sold a lot of SINAR

except Norma

[Alan Klein]

On the Chamonix, the axis (hinge location) is below the frame. That's where it tilts from, so of course any tilt moves everything off the focal plane. The bottom of the frame near the hinges moves less, but all areas off the tilt axis move. And the tilt axis is outside the picture area.


Regardless, the best practice is rechecking focus after all movements have been dialed in.

Mark, That isn't correct. The Chamonix axis on my 45H-1 is not below the frame but about 1/5 the distance above the bottom of the frame. So the picture stays in focus in the frame where the axis is. Which Chamonix do you have that puts the axis beneath the frame??

[pchong]

Interesting discussion, especially for a new user. I have two further questions:

1. Is the tilt axis of the Sinar P system also asymmetric?

If I am not mistaken, the Horseman LX has the ability to pick your tilt axis using a geared scale. This scale is available on both front and rear standards. Does this mean that the front and rear must be moved the same amount?

2. In the Sinar manual, it recommends only using rear tilts for a subject distance of less than 5x the focal length. And not to use front tilts as this may affect magnification. Is it then a necessary trade off for table top or macro work to live with image geometry?