Tilts and swings - front vs. back

[Leigh]

I generally prefer to do focus plane corrections using the rear tilts and swings rather than the front, because rear movements don't change my framing significantly.

Do you prefer front or rear, and for what reason(s)?

TIA

- Leigh

[Heroique]

This deserves to be a long thread because it’s such a good question.

I too use back swings and tilts to help achieve focus, but doing so changes how the parallel lines of your subject will look. That is, these particular movements change the geometry of your subject, if not the viewpoint perspective.

This may be important to your composition – or it might not be.

[vinny]

combo of the two quite a bit but rear mostly unless shooting buildings or other horizontal/verticals. Easier to reach the controls, especially when using a 450mm or 600mm lens as well.

[memorris]

I almost never move the back. I was taught to use the front and doing so serves me well. Yes there is some change in the crop but not that much and it is easy to adjust for. But I am very particular about only having converging lines when it is part of the composition, which is very rare for me.

[Noah A]

I can't remember ever using back movements other than rise (If I'm out of front fall) or perhaps some shift.

But I shoot mostly in urban settings and I want the vertical lines to stay vertical.

[rdenney]

Remember that it is the position of the back that controls perspective convergence. Tilting the back will change the way the image is projected, and will either increase or decrease perspective convergence. I was taught the use of the view camera in the architectural context, and was thus taught to bring the rear standard to vertical to ensure parallel lines on the vertical edges of buildings. Once that was done, then the focus plane was adjusted using the front standard.

When the convergence is not an issue (in less demanding situations than with architectural subjects, or if a correction is possible after scanning or while printing), tilting in the back can keep the film within the image circle of the lens. It's a way to adjust the focus plane with a lens of limited coverage.

Rick "who does not tilt the rear without a specific reason to do so" Denney

[Bill_1856]

I always use the front.
This was the subject of a previous thread, and I was quite surprised that by far a large majority made their corrections with the back.

[Bruce Watson]

Do you prefer front or rear, and for what reason(s)?

Front. In general I don't like the distortion that comes from a back that isn't plumb and level.

That said, there are some times when distortion can be your friend. There are some near-far photographs that can work better with back tilt -- to make the near "loom" a bit. IOW, to make the rock in the fore ground bigger. But like most things, this should be done in moderation or it looks clownish. At least to me.

[Leigh]

But I shoot mostly in urban settings and I want the vertical lines to stay vertical.

In general I don't like the distortion that comes from a back that isn't plumb and level.

Rear swings do not affect verticals at all.

- Leigh

[Bob McCarthy]

It really comes down to the limitations of lenses. We would all be more "front centric" if lenses had huge, sharp, contrasty image circles that allowed unlimited movement.

But such a lense would be large, heavy, and more at home in the studio.

But we value small, light, and portable so we sacrifice image circle. If we "really" want portable, we can also sacrifice aperture.

Back movements are usually made from the center of the image circle and are as sharp and contrasty as a lens can deliver.

So if straight verticals don't exist in a shot, which end doesn't matter unless rear movements is taken to excess. What matters is what lens you have mounted and what its limitations are...

I use the rear most of the time, but I value weight and portability (lenswise anyway).

bob