Rear tilt focus?

Does the ability to tilt the rear of a view camera affect the focus in
any way? I use a Crown Graphic with the front standard reversed, and
front tilting usually does the job. However I'm often finding corners
to be a little soft.

Though I know the rear standard is for the shape of the image, could it
also play a small part in focus to the corners?

In 14 Steps to Success in Large Format Photography, Verlag
Grossbild-Technik - Munchen says about Swing back

"The swing-back performs three fundamentally different functions:

1. Increase of depth of field in accordance with the Scheimpflug rule. For
this swing-back frequently alone suffices and it is unnecessary to use lens
swing. The camera back is always swung in a direction opposite to the
inclination of the subject plane.

2. Prevention of convergent verticals. Here also, the swing-back is
frequently sufficient, without the use of lens tilt.

3. Deliberate control of perspective. In advertising, particularly such
'exaggerated' perspective is much employed, inasmuch as it enables eye
catching conceptions of everyday objects to be produced.

In contrast to all lens movements, the use of the swing back makes no
special demands on the covering power of the lens: the effective size of the
format that has to be covered sharply remains unchanged. Consequently the
swing-back can be employed even with lenses of wide aperture and with
telephoto lenses.


wrote in message
oups.com...
Does the ability to tilt the rear of a view camera affect the focus in
any way? I use a Crown Graphic with the front standard reversed, and
front tilting usually does the job. However I'm often finding corners
to be a little soft.

Though I know the rear standard is for the shape of the image, could it
also play a small part in focus to the corners?

In 14 Steps to Success in Large Format Photography, Verlag
Grossbild-Technik - Munchen says about Swing back

"The swing-back performs three fundamentally different functions:

1. Increase of depth of field in accordance with the Scheimpflug rule. For
this swing-back frequently alone suffices and it is unnecessary to use lens
swing. The camera back is always swung in a direction opposite to the
inclination of the subject plane.

2. Prevention of convergent verticals. Here also, the swing-back is
frequently sufficient, without the use of lens tilt.

3. Deliberate control of perspective. In advertising, particularly such
'exaggerated' perspective is much employed, inasmuch as it enables eye
catching conceptions of everyday objects to be produced.

In contrast to all lens movements, the use of the swing back makes no
special demands on the covering power of the lens: the effective size of the
format that has to be covered sharply remains unchanged. Consequently the
swing-back can be employed even with lenses of wide aperture and with
telephoto lenses.


wrote in message
oups.com...
Does the ability to tilt the rear of a view camera affect the focus in
any way? I use a Crown Graphic with the front standard reversed, and
front tilting usually does the job. However I'm often finding corners
to be a little soft.

Though I know the rear standard is for the shape of the image, could it
also play a small part in focus to the corners?

"Fred Leif" wrote in message
...
In 14 Steps to Success in Large Format Photography, Verlag
Grossbild-Technik - Munchen says about Swing back

"The swing-back performs three fundamentally different functions:

1. Increase of depth of field in accordance with the Scheimpflug rule.
For
this swing-back frequently alone suffices and it is unnecessary to use
lens
swing. The camera back is always swung in a direction opposite to the
inclination of the subject plane.

2. Prevention of convergent verticals. Here also, the swing-back is
frequently sufficient, without the use of lens tilt.

3. Deliberate control of perspective. In advertising, particularly such
'exaggerated' perspective is much employed, inasmuch as it enables eye
catching conceptions of everyday objects to be produced.

In contrast to all lens movements, the use of the swing back makes no
special demands on the covering power of the lens: the effective size of
the
format that has to be covered sharply remains unchanged. Consequently the
swing-back can be employed even with lenses of wide aperture and with
telephoto lenses.


I'm still new at this, but doesn't tilting/swinging the back change the
relationship of film to subject, thus changing the "shape" of the subject on
the film?

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"Fred Leif" wrote

3. Deliberate control of perspective. In advertising, particularly such
'exaggerated' perspective is much employed, inasmuch as it enables eye
catching conceptions of everyday objects to be produced.

In contrast to all lens movements, the use of the swing back makes no
special demands on the covering power of the lens: the effective size of
the
format that has to be covered sharply remains unchanged. Consequently
the
swing-back can be employed even with lenses of wide aperture and with
telephoto lenses.


I'm still new at this, but doesn't tilting/swinging the back change the
relationship of film to subject, thus changing the "shape" of the subject
on
the film?

See #3 above.

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"Fred Leif" wrote

3. Deliberate control of perspective. In advertising, particularly such
'exaggerated' perspective is much employed, inasmuch as it enables eye
catching conceptions of everyday objects to be produced.

In contrast to all lens movements, the use of the swing back makes no
special demands on the covering power of the lens: the effective size of
the
format that has to be covered sharply remains unchanged. Consequently
the
swing-back can be employed even with lenses of wide aperture and with
telephoto lenses.


I'm still new at this, but doesn't tilting/swinging the back change the
relationship of film to subject, thus changing the "shape" of the subject
on
the film?

See #3 above.

In article ,
"Matt Clara" wrote:

"Fred Leif" wrote in message
...
In 14 Steps to Success in Large Format Photography, Verlag
Grossbild-Technik - Munchen says about Swing back

"The swing-back performs three fundamentally different functions:

1. Increase of depth of field in accordance with the Scheimpflug rule.
For
this swing-back frequently alone suffices and it is unnecessary to use
lens
swing. The camera back is always swung in a direction opposite to the
inclination of the subject plane.

2. Prevention of convergent verticals. Here also, the swing-back is
frequently sufficient, without the use of lens tilt.

3. Deliberate control of perspective. In advertising, particularly such
'exaggerated' perspective is much employed, inasmuch as it enables eye
catching conceptions of everyday objects to be produced.

In contrast to all lens movements, the use of the swing back makes no
special demands on the covering power of the lens: the effective size of
the
format that has to be covered sharply remains unchanged. Consequently the
swing-back can be employed even with lenses of wide aperture and with
telephoto lenses.


I'm still new at this, but doesn't tilting/swinging the back change the
relationship of film to subject, thus changing the "shape" of the subject on
the film?

Yes.

It also does nothing to the depth of field. Like front swings and tilts
it allows you to control the plane of focus not the depth of field. To
increase or decrease the depth of field you change the aperture.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

In article ,
"Matt Clara" wrote:

"Fred Leif" wrote in message
...
In 14 Steps to Success in Large Format Photography, Verlag
Grossbild-Technik - Munchen says about Swing back

"The swing-back performs three fundamentally different functions:

1. Increase of depth of field in accordance with the Scheimpflug rule.
For
this swing-back frequently alone suffices and it is unnecessary to use
lens
swing. The camera back is always swung in a direction opposite to the
inclination of the subject plane.

2. Prevention of convergent verticals. Here also, the swing-back is
frequently sufficient, without the use of lens tilt.

3. Deliberate control of perspective. In advertising, particularly such
'exaggerated' perspective is much employed, inasmuch as it enables eye
catching conceptions of everyday objects to be produced.

In contrast to all lens movements, the use of the swing back makes no
special demands on the covering power of the lens: the effective size of
the
format that has to be covered sharply remains unchanged. Consequently the
swing-back can be employed even with lenses of wide aperture and with
telephoto lenses.


I'm still new at this, but doesn't tilting/swinging the back change the
relationship of film to subject, thus changing the "shape" of the subject on
the film?

Yes.

It also does nothing to the depth of field. Like front swings and tilts
it allows you to control the plane of focus not the depth of field. To
increase or decrease the depth of field you change the aperture.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

In article ,
Fred Leif wrote:

3. Deliberate control of perspective. In advertising, particularly such
'exaggerated' perspective is much employed, inasmuch as it enables eye
catching conceptions of everyday objects to be produced.

It occurs to me (as a newcomer to 4*5), that this could be handy for
simulating shift on lenses that don't have huge coverage - tilt the camera,
then tilt the back so that the film plane is parallel to the subject, et
voila - a similar effect to shift, but no requierement for the larger
image circle.

Of course, there doesn't seem to be any such thing as a free lunch. Since
the focal plane is no-longer parallel to the film, one may need to stop down
more to get the top and bottom of the subject in focus. Are there any other
downsides to this technique?

This is of particular interest to me, because I have back movements, and a
135mm Xenotar, which has somewhat "limited" coverage (but otherwise seems to
be a really nice lens).

In article ,
Fred Leif wrote:

3. Deliberate control of perspective. In advertising, particularly such
'exaggerated' perspective is much employed, inasmuch as it enables eye
catching conceptions of everyday objects to be produced.

It occurs to me (as a newcomer to 4*5), that this could be handy for
simulating shift on lenses that don't have huge coverage - tilt the camera,
then tilt the back so that the film plane is parallel to the subject, et
voila - a similar effect to shift, but no requierement for the larger
image circle.

Of course, there doesn't seem to be any such thing as a free lunch. Since
the focal plane is no-longer parallel to the film, one may need to stop down
more to get the top and bottom of the subject in focus. Are there any other
downsides to this technique?

This is of particular interest to me, because I have back movements, and a
135mm Xenotar, which has somewhat "limited" coverage (but otherwise seems to
be a really nice lens).