Photos not level...advice?

[Ari]

Hi,
I have a problem with about 20% of the building photos I take.
I realize I may be nitpicking here, so bear with me.
I notice that in the photos shown below, one side of the photo is perfectly vertical, while the side closest to the camera is not; it is usually keystoning, indicating that the camera is not level.
Camera is a solid monorail, tripod is solid too.
I line up the camera's rail to the leg of the tripod that faces out, then level the tripod head (3-way), then level the camera.
I use a good bubble level, made in Japan, for these kinds of shots, and I follow what it says because the bubble levels on the camera don't read the same all the time, and I don't use the GG grid for aligning, as it may be installed at a slight angle.
What am I missing here, and what am I doing wrong? Why is only one side askew?
Thanks in advance.

[Michael Clark]

I run into this once in a while to,keeping the back level (horizontal and vertical) I thought was essential and maybe it could be some distortion from the lens as I try to use the front movements the most. I hope some one will help you as I'm also interested.I have to say you do a better job than me.
Mike

[Doremus Scudder]

I do a lot of architectural shots with a field camera and, as much as I try, some shots are just not "square." It just happens. They need to be corrected when printing.

But before I go into the printing corrections, let's talk about getting the image as close to correct possible in-camera.

First, I think you are making a big mistake by not using the grid on your ground glass. Levels are notoriously inaccurate; the only true reference you have are the right angles and straight lines on the gridded ground glass. Do whatever inspection and adjustments are necessary to get your ground glass mounted properly, i.e., parallel to the film edges (image opening edges of your camera back). Even if the grid is a little skewed, the only thing that happens is that the image will not be exactly aligned with the film edges (this can happen due to the film not sitting really square in the holder as well...). The image, however, will be properly squared up as long as you've used the grid to align it.

When composing the image, try to use lines as close to the edge of the image as possible. A vertical line at the center of the image will be vertical as long as you have the camera leveled side-to-side, regardless of how much keystoning the outer lines have. The same applies to horizontal lines you want square. By the way, using the grid is the ONLY way to ensure that horizontal lines are parallel. No amount of leveling will help; gravity only works up-down :-)

My sequence is as follows: First level the camera roughly with the levels.

Next, go to work aligning the image with the grid (you don't even really need the levels from here on). Adjust level side to side by choosing a vertical line at the center of the image and adjusting the side-to-side level on the tripod head to get the line to line up with the grid. If you align with a vertical on the edge, you may be lining up with a line that is keystoned! (Your problem above, I believe.) If there is no vertical line at the center, use your shift movement to place one as close as possible to the center (don't pan, since the tripod may not be exactly leveled and you will just introduce error). I also try to check a horizontal line at the center of the image as a control. Like the vertical at the center, a horizontal line running through the center of the image will be correct as long as the camera is correctly leveled side-to-side.

Next, align verticals at the edge of the image by tilting the tripod head (front-to-back) to get lines at the outside of the image to line up with the grid. If you don't have a vertical in the center, you can use the alternate technique of lining up two parallel lines at the edges of the image. This requires some see-sawing and back-and-forth, so try to use a center line when possible.

Check everything once you think you have the lines right. If things don't seem to click, make sure the vertical lines you are using are actually vertical... Keep in mind that the real world is often not as square as we would like. Old buildings are often really skewed due to shifting, settling, and sag. I often have to compromise to find the most pleasing composition.

If you need horizontals level and parallel, pan the tripod head till things line up with the grid. Again, choose lines close to the edge of the image. Recheck everything again.

If you are shooting transparencies and they are the finished product, then there is nothing else you can do to correct things, so spend time aligning the ground glass and really lining things up when composing the image. If the levels and the grid do not agree, always go with the grid.

However, the best laid plans of mice and men do oftimes go astray... and if you are printing, you can correct misalignments, even fairly severe ones, at the printing stage. Sometimes I am amazed at how far from square/parallel/perpendicular some of my lines can be, even after all the time I spend aligning... So, if you print digitally, just fix the image in PhotoShop... (I'm shuddering as I recommend that, however...).

For me, an analog printer, I prop up the easel to achieve square. My Beseler enlargers have a tilting lens stage that allows me to really adjust focus with the good old Scheimpflug principle. However, I am currently using Omega D enlargers that do not allow this, and find that the depth of field at f/16 or higher is adequate for very sharp prints with even fairly large propping up of the easel (even an inch or so).

If you are good with camera movements, propping up the easel to achieve proper alignment will be second nature. I keep a bunch of misc. pieces of cardboard, foam-core board, etc. around to use as props, which go under the appropriate easel corners. I've even had to adjust on two axes at once, getting one corner higher than all the rest (equal to using swings and tilts together) to get an image or two squared up. No problems with sharpness in the final print (I print up to 16x20 from 4x5 negs).

Hope this helps a bit,

Doremus Scudder

[Kirk Gittings]

I have struggled with this for my entire career. I haven't ever found on camera levels to be dependable or bubble levels in a hot shoe type of arrangement. The only thing I have found dependable is holding a really good level against the ground glass (with a properly mounted grid screen for determining side to side level), which I have done successfully for a couple of decades on numerous cameras including DSLRs (holding a bubble level against the screen.

[Leigh]

If you want some GOOD bullseye or bubble levels, take a look at the offerings from McMaster-Carr at www.mcmaster.com

They have a wide range, in various accuracies and sizes, for a few dollars each. Some are far more accurate than you could ever use with a view camera.

They also have an assortment of other level types, some of which are appropriate for this use. I got a four-quadrant level (called an 'angle indicator') that sits on the camera bed for front-to-back or horizontal, or can be pushed against the ground glass for vertical.

- Leigh

[Sirius Glass]

I use a six inch torpedo level across the top of my camera. Then I line up the verticals with the scribed lines on the ground glass.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

If you have an i-pod or an i-phone, you can down load an inclinometer for .99 that will give you extremely accurate readings. Just hold it against the standards and adjust for 0 degrees. Works very well for me.

[rdenney]

No small bubble level has the precision to support the accuracy you seek.

Consider this: You can notice a problem of just a few inches on a building column that lines up with the edge of the frame. 4 inches in 48 feet, for example, is an error of 0.7%. A bubble level that puts a 1/4" bubble in a 1" sight glass isn't going to do it. That 0.7% error is just 0.007" on that 1" sight-glass.

On surveying instruments old enough to be leveled using a bubble, the glass itself will be mounted in a frame about 6" long for a transit and maybe up to twice that for a Dumpy-style sight level. The tube in which the bubble floats is bigger and more precise, and most important of all, the surveyor will turn the level around for every confirmation of level to zero the error in both directions.

I have several carpenter's levels that are anywhere from 2 to 8 feet long, and they are all wrong. I know this because I turn the level around--any error should be identical in both directions to know if the calibration is correct. How is that 15mm-long spirit level on the side of the camera going to be better?

Measuring on the glass with a torpedo level that uses a tubular sight glass is much better, to be sure, but the only way to know if you have it right is by looking at the ground glass. That 4" in 48" error that is invisible on a tiny bubble levels on tripods or the equally tiny tubular level on view cameras will be quite visible in the ground glass using a loupe. An accurately gridded ground glass is essential for this sort of work.

Rick "who uses the bubble levels to get in the ballpark" Denney

[Leigh]

No small bubble level has the precision to support the accuracy you seek.

Rick,

You really need to do some research before you open your mouth.

McMaster-Carr (linked above) has bullseye levels with accuracies to 0.035"/foot, which equates to 1.68" in 48'.

They also have bubble levels with accuracies to 0.0003"/foot, or 0.014" in 48'.

There are numerous offerings with lesser accuracies (and lower prices).

- Leigh

[John Koehrer]

Rick,

You really need to do some research before you open your mouth.

McMaster-Carr (linked above) has bullseye levels with accuracies to 0.035"/foot, which equates to 1.68" in 48'.

They also have bubble levels with accuracies to 0.0003"/foot, or 0.014" in 48'.

There are numerous offerings with lesser accuracies (and lower prices).

- Leigh

My, how politely stated.
Ah, civility shot in the foot again.