Why so little tilt needed?

[Ben R]

Although I've not yet started exposing film, while teaching myself LF I've been spending a great deal of time on 'dry runs' to get used to the workflow and setting up.

One thing that I've noticed is how little tilt I need with a 90mm lens, I was focusing on a scene from the pebbles in the most foreground to the buildings far behind and I needed less than a degree (maybe one degree but I doubt it) to get everything in focus. I still needed to stop down to get the tops of the trees in the background in focus but it was very little tilt to achieve so much.

My 210mm seems to need more tilt but even then I would have assumed that to match the plane of focus from my feet to the top of the buildings would need the same degree from the lens as in real life. But it isn't so. With swings I need more of an angle, nearer what I would expect, but not so with the tilts.

Am I doing something wrong?

[Andrew_4548]

No, you're not doing anything wrong

Have a search for the articles written by Merklinger describing his Hinge rule. Although it contains some optics and equations it's not too bad on the fifth read-through.

One way that a few of us have done is to focus on the near point using the rear standard then tilt the front standard to get the far point in focus. Obviously, the near will go a bit out of focus as you tilt the lens so correct using the focusing on the rear standard - it only takes a couple of iterations to get a result and then stop down to get the bits off the plane of focus to go sharp.

Have a play with it and see what you think - it could be less work than focusing on the far then near and using the front standard to adjust the focus...

If you've got asymmetric movements, it's even easier...

For example if you've got a rock in the foreground and tress in the distance, place the plane of focus through the middle of the height of the trees and half way up the rock - as you stop down, the depth of field will "spread" to cover the tops and bottoms of these objects.

[Andrew_4548]

PS also, as you've found, the wider the lens, the less movements required - try the same exercise with a 210 lens and then look at the angles involved...

For your example, assuming the same distance to the hinge point (from the article) of 6 feet, you need an angle of 3° with the 90mm and 7° with the 210mm.

I'd put the plane of focus half way up the building - you've got a better chance of the depth of field covering the base of it as well as the top. Putting it on the top of the building "wastes" half of the available depth of field and you'll possibly find the base would be going out of focus...

[Bruce Watson]

I'd put the plane of focus half way up the building - you've got a better chance of the depth of field coveing the base of it as well as the top. Putting it on the top of the building "wastes" half of the available depth of field and you[ possibly find the base would be going out of focus...

Exactly. I had to learn this the hard way. When composing on the ground glass it is sometimes difficult to remember that there is DOF on both sides of the plane of focus. It is non-intuitive perhaps.

[Ben R]

To be honest, with half a degree of tilt it's pretty hard to see where the actual plane is, the whole building looked in focus!

[Andrew_4548]

The thing to watch for, and I seem to remember there was a lengthy thread on this quite a while back, is where you get the near and far points sharp where you've placed the plane of focus but the middle distance is not sharp which looks / appears to defy all the things you thought you knew about focusing . It's due to you not stopping down the aperture enough - as you stop down, you'll see the middle distance come into focus but obviously, it gets harder to tell as the picture gets dingy...

[Ben R]

That did get me first time I tried it! I do however understand the concept of where the OOF areas will be and have got used to working out the amount of distance between low and high (when using tilt) to apply Hansma rather than front and back.

Someone mentioned on a previous thread that to reduct the amount of to and fro-ing with refocusing after movements, focus on the center of the GG apply tilt and then one refocus and everything snaps into shape. Seems to work as well which is great as it can be a real pain in the neck with a field camera, it was so easy with the monorail in the store!

[steve simmons]

It is good that you discovered this. Many beginners use much to much in the way of movements and end up in more trouble.

You might want to check out one of these books

User's Guide to the View Camera by Jim Stone
Large Format Nature Photography by Jack Dykinga
Using the View Camera that I wrote.

check your local library


steve simmons
publisher, view camera magazine
www.viewcamera.com

[Joseph O'Neil]

You've got it right - sometimes "less is more" as the old phrase goes is bang on with it comes to movements. About the most common "extreme movement" I use is front rise when photographing a church with a tall steeple.

Most LF camera ads that show a camera all twisted up like a pretzel are kinda like car ads that show sports car zooming down the highway at 100 mph (or 160 kph ). Sure, it can be technically done, but in the real world, how often do you drive your car at or over 100 mph?
joe

[C. D. Keth]

Most LF camera ads that show a camera all twisted up like a pretzel are kinda like car ads that show sports car zooming down the highway at 100 mph (or 160 kph ). Sure, it can be technically done, but in the real world, how often do you drive your car at or over 100 mph?
joe

Never, but I find solace in knowing that my camera can double as a piece of modern sculpture.