The last days of analog
 

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:26:20 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I originally wrote:

"There are some things which as far as I know can't be done with
digital.

then you know wrong.

Consider photographing a very tall wall from close up
while keeping the whole image in focus. A technical camera copes
with this by raising and tilting the lens upwards while tilting the
camera back".

as i said, the camera back is *not* tilted for a tall wall, or more
commonly a tall building because walls are boring, however, the math is
the same.

Let's say it is the front of a 1000 year old building: and you have
limited room: and you want to have all of the wall in the best
possible focus. It's interesting and just making do with hyperfocal
distance is not good enough. You *have* to use a camera setup that
employs the same basic geometry of
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...cheimpflug.jpg
(except that the assembly is pointing up rather than down).

no, you don't *have* to use such a setup for a tall building. in fact,
it would be a bad idea.

here's a situation where it would be, and note the rear standard is
*parallel* to the building:

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...b9/t/576c2e495
a655be13f013aba/1467902699499/Scheimpflug.gif

I've seen that before but I don't think it qualifies as "photographing
a very tall wall from close up" as I originally specified.

it doesn't. that's the whole point.

scheimpflug is not needed for a tall building.

It is if you are close up.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

The last days of analog
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

here's a situation where it would be, and note the rear standard is
*parallel* to the building:


https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...ef5b4b9/t/576c
2e495
a655be13f013aba/1467902699499/Scheimpflug.gif

I've seen that before but I don't think it qualifies as "photographing
a very tall wall from close up" as I originally specified.

it doesn't. that's the whole point.

scheimpflug is not needed for a tall building.

It is if you are close up.

you're moving the goalposts again.

your original problem image was *not* close up.

The last days of analog
 

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:22:05 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

here's a situation where it would be, and note the rear standard is
*parallel* to the building:


https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...ef5b4b9/t/576c
2e495
a655be13f013aba/1467902699499/Scheimpflug.gif

I've seen that before but I don't think it qualifies as "photographing
a very tall wall from close up" as I originally specified.

it doesn't. that's the whole point.

scheimpflug is not needed for a tall building.

It is if you are close up.

you're moving the goalposts again.

Go back and read the thread. I wrote "Consider photographing a very
tall wall from close up". I've already told you twice.

your original problem image was *not* close up.

No it wasn't, but that's not we were discussing.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

The last days of analog
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

scheimpflug is not needed for a tall building.

It is if you are close up.

you're moving the goalposts again.

Go back and read the thread. I wrote "Consider photographing a very
tall wall from close up". I've already told you twice.

your original problem image was *not* close up.

No it wasn't, but that's not we were discussing.

it was until you decided to change it.

The last days of analog
 

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:56:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

scheimpflug is not needed for a tall building.

It is if you are close up.

you're moving the goalposts again.

Go back and read the thread. I wrote "Consider photographing a very
tall wall from close up". I've already told you twice.

your original problem image was *not* close up.

No it wasn't, but that's not we were discussing.

it was until you decided to change it.

Exactly. I raised it as an example and have been discussing it ever
since. I had no idea what you thought were talking about. Mind you
that makes two of us.

You have no excuse for not noticing that I had raised a particular
example as *I* never snipped any text, let alone snipped text without
acknowledging the fact.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens