How much movement do you actually use?

Ian Grant

Well-Known Member
Registered User
Hi Ian, no the closest point was maybe 3 ft away, after a large Xmas lunch I can't think of the name of that block of stone that would have spanned the columns, you'll see how they converge towards the background, it's a a combination of front Tilt and DOF to keep the trees sharp also knowing just what DOF might help with.

It's a bit of a learning curve if you're lucky it's instinctive :D

Ian
 

KenS

Active Member
Registered User
Those Many years ago, my mentor indicated that the least amount of tilt to apply using the front standard was 'usually' the BEST.... I believe those 'new' to large format camera use tend to 'overdo' the application of the ability to so do. I was 'taught' that the 'rear standard was best when 'vertical'.. I don't think that 'mantra' has changed in the past 60-odd years.

Ken (suffering the past 'continuous',... but 'fine/light' snowfall for the past 24 hours providing us with close to 36 inches of 'fluffy white stuff' that I now have to get out and 'clear' off the sidewalk in front of our house [ a city by-law ]

Ken
 

Alan9940

Active Member
Registered User
Those Many years ago, my mentor indicated that the least amount of tilt to apply using the front standard was 'usually' the BEST.... I believe those 'new' to large format camera use tend to 'overdo' the application of the ability to so do. I was 'taught' that the 'rear standard was best when 'vertical'.. I don't think that 'mantra' has changed in the past 60-odd years.
IMO, the least amount of any camera movement that gets the job done is the goal. I have to respectfully disagree regarding the rear standard...I often pull the top of the rear standard backwards to give the impression of "looming" to objects in the immediate foreground.
 

KenS

Active Member
Registered User
Allan...

A 'SOMEONE' once said 'To each his own'. If what and when your technique 'best serves your purpose'.. Do it

My means (i.e, the how and when I make adjustments) are not 'carved in stone for everyone else to 'follow"

Ken
 

David M

Well-Known Member
Registered User
It looks as though we are in a horses-for-courses situation here.
When LF cameras were advertised more frequently than today, they were often shown with very exaggerated movements, just to demonstrate what the camera could do. This may have imprinted itself on beginners' mind as being normal, which of course, it isn't.
Another factor might be that the diagrams in LF textbooks often show quite exaggerated movements to make their point more clearly. (And perhaps, to fit on the page.) In practice, I think we've all found that a little movement can go a long way.
Ken's and Alan's comments are demonstrating the great versatility of the view camera. Very useful information.

Another thing occurs to me concerning small movements. I have one camera with strong detents at the zero position and it's quite difficult to set small movements. Am I alone?
 

KenS

Active Member
Registered User
David,

My 'somehwat recent' post (the syringe) in 'close-up but not macro' was made with the camera slightly above the table-to level... and 'pointed down to 'frame' the syringe... and the 'back brought back up to the vertical to get the 'whole' (ie 'drop at the tip of needle and the rear of the plunger) in focus.. ..which made it 'easier than 'playing' around with the 'angle of front standard.
The many years of 'doing a lot of close up-but-not-macro' 'when a 'working' image maker made it a lot easier.

As 'they' used to say.. "you gotta dance with the girl that brung ya"... until she finds a someone better to 'take her home'

Ken
 

Ian-Barber

Admin
Staff member
Registered User
My 'somehwat recent' post (the syringe) in 'close-up but not macro' was made with the camera slightly above the table-to level... and 'pointed down to 'frame' the syringe... and the 'back brought back up to the vertical to get the 'whole' (ie 'drop at the tip of needle and the rear of the plunger) in focus
Would this have changed the perspective of the syringe, ( made it look bigger) if you know what I mean
 

KenS

Active Member
Registered User
I can't say that it might have changed magnification 'per se' But it 'allowed' the drop of water to be brought into focus at the film plane. I might hesitate to 'apply a magnification factor' but the near end of the needle... being 'closer' to the lens, might 'look' larger
due to 'perspective'. Place a pencil on your desk/table top and view from a close distance. Since the distance from the eye to the 'tip' (or the eraser.. (if you prefer that 'end) is 'obviously' going to look a little 'larger' because it is 'closer BUT... past "life experience'
and your daily experience 'handling' that pencil, you 'really "know" that one end is not REALLY 'larger' in 'diameter' than the other.
Same size objects observed from a closer distance will ALWAYS 'look larger than an identical object a bit further away.... as long as you KNOW they are 'identical' (I believe its an eye/brain 'thing' that 'develops' with age...but then.. i am not a 'scientist... 8-(

Ken
 

David M

Well-Known Member
Registered User
The principal control of perspective is distance from the subject. That's why we can speak colloquially of wide angle effects and the apparent compression of long (telephoto in DSLR-speak) lenses.

I've had a look at the original "Syringe" picture The perspective looks natural there seems to be no exaggerated looming effect.
Tilting the rear standard back by a large amount would give the enlarged foreground that's familiar from some landscape photographs, although this might then need a compensating adjustment at the front. An enlarged drop might be needed if, for instance, it had to suit an advertising slogan. ("Drop in for your 'flu jab." perhaps?)

By tilting the rear standard the other way, it would have possible to create an artificial isometric effect with both edges of the syringe parallel on the picture plane, but as always in LF, this would need further adjustments.

There are no vertical lines in the Syringe picture, so either standard could have been used to control the plane of focus. A box in the scene might have changed things.
One matter we haven't mentioned is that rear movements don't consume any of the lens coverage, whereas front movements do.
 
Top