If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sigma 12-24 vs Canon 10-22 | Bill Hilton | Digital Photography | 47 | January 7th 05 12:01 AM |
Movements | Neil Purling | Large Format Photography Equipment | 57 | December 21st 04 12:17 PM |
Olympus C4000 Zoom manual focus | nosredna | Digital Photography | 13 | December 19th 04 01:09 AM |
Rolleiflex Automat weird problem | Dmitry Poplavsky | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 25 | December 9th 04 10:01 AM |
DSLR focus screens | Stacey | Digital Photography | 32 | September 2nd 04 06:18 PM |