Paul Atreides wrote:
In article ,
Leonard Evens wrote:


Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Robert Feinman wrote:



Having tilts and swings on the back of the camera is only a convenience
for the photographer. It doesn't add any extra functionality.


BS.



In principle he is right. If you have enough tilt and swing on the
front standard, you can rotate the camer and use the front movements.
All a view camera does is allow you to place the front and rear
standards in appropirate positions relative to one another. It doesn't
matter how you arrange to do it; it is only the final relative
orientation that matters. For example, some field cameras have no rear
shift. But the same effect can be accomplised by rotating the camera
and swinging the front and rear.

Of course, in practice, that "convenience" may make all the difference
in the world. There are physical limts to any particular way of holding
the components together. For example, if you have a rear shift, you can
do the above maneuver and then also shift to obtain a larger shift than
you could without it.

But of course


My point is in your last paragraph, and in his expounding,...
The Convenience "IS" The Extra Functionality,.....and it is important
to me when I use my 4x5 doing interior architectural photography.

I didn't say it as well, but that was really what I was trying to say.
It is all right to talk about theoretical functionality in ideal
circumstances without any physical limitations on your equipment and on
your ability to use it, but one shouldn't identify that with what
happens in the real world.



http://archives.baltimoremagazine.ne...hippo/hippodro
me.htm