No need for a tilt shift lens.

"David Littlewood" wrote:
David J. Littleboy writes
"Chris Brown" wrote:
Bob Salomon wrote:
In article ,
Chris Brown wrote:

I could probably
have got the tops looking sharp as well if I'd stopped down to f/64

You would also have been well into diffraction with that lens at f64.

On a 400 ISO Polaroid, I don't think I'd care!

Diffraction is roughly a 50% MTF hit at 800/(f number) and a zero MTF at
1600/(f number).

For f/64, those are 12.5 and 25 lp/mm, respectively. So a 16x20 (4x, with
usable detail with sharpening in the 3 to 4 lp/mm range) from a 4x5 at
f/64
would look better than a 16x20 from a 5D (17x, well under 3 lp/mm (since
whatever lens and f stop you use, the 5D will be well under 50% MTF at 40
lp/mm)).

Try telling that to Ilya in the "When to use a smaller aperture" thread!

I can't: he's in my killfile.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article , Joseph
Meehan writes
David Littlewood wrote:

But, unless you had a tilting lens panel and could use Scheimpflug,
you must have had to stop down a *lot* (and thus lose a lot of
resolution).

I did have a tilting lens stages and I also used an enlarger that had a
tilting negative stage.

Ah, OK. My LPL 7451 does not have this feature, which I have
occasionally regretted.

David
--
David Littlewood

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
In article , Lorem Ipsum
writes

And when shooting 8x10 film, the degree of diffusion at F/64 with a
(nominal) normal lens is not even worth considering.


Diffusion?

Uh, I'm dick's electric, diklexik, something like that.

DIFFRACTION!

In article ,
David Littlewood wrote:
In article , Chris Brown
writes

Should have seen the way the tripod legs were splayed, almost at the
horizontal, and the rather uncomfortable way I had to lay across them, head
practically under the floor, with the dark cloth sort of sitting atop like a
dead jellyfish. Most undignified. ;-)


Especially after testing the props....

Not guilty, check out the amount of sunlight in the picture - it wasn't even
close to being over the yard arm. ;-)

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
In article , Joseph Meehan
writes
David Littlewood wrote:

But, unless you had a tilting lens panel and could use Scheimpflug,
you must have had to stop down a *lot* (and thus lose a lot of
resolution).

I did have a tilting lens stages and I also used an enlarger that had
a
tilting negative stage.

Ah, OK. My LPL 7451 does not have this feature, which I have occasionally
regretted.

You aren't missing a thing. Tilting the easle is a lousy way to 'fix'
perspective. It creates verticial distortion, smears resolution. It's just a
crummy idea.

In article ,
David Littlewood wrote:
In article , Chris Brown
writes

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/Tilt.jpg

I took that on an MPP VII 4x5 view camera using a Schneider 150mm Symmar
using both front and rear-tilt. Note that the focus plane actually runs
*horizontally*, parallel to the axis of the lens.

This would be the way to get, say, a field of flowers in sharp focus.

Indeed. Here's an example of where I used a near-horizontal focus plane in a
less contrived situation:

http://narcissus.dyndns.org/Chris/AngTemple.jpg

Note that the path in the foreground is in focus, the folly is in focus, but
the foliage between, high off the ground is not.

Another way of taking it would be to have the focal plane vertical, but at
an incline, so it ran through both bottles, using horizontal-tilt instead of
vertical tilt.

Surely this would have been better for the bottles - if you wanted a
sharp picture rather than a demonstration shot.

Yes, definitely.

Image details - 150mm, f/22, 1/400, 400 ISO Polaroid B&W. I could probably
have got the tops looking sharp as well if I'd stopped down to f/64, but I
specifically wanted something that demonstrated tilt.

A man who likes Islay malt! I must say I find a little goes a long way,

Good job, considering how much the stuff costs!

I normally prefer the less in-your-face flavours of mainland products.

I find the highland malts to be most pleasant on occasion, but most of the
time I like the peaty bite of the island malts. Can be a bit overpowering on
the palette though, should one want to sample something a little more subtle
afterwards.

On 10/31/05 12:46 PM, in article
, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

David Littlewood wrote:
In article , Joseph
Meehan writes
Scott W wrote:
I have read from a number of people the LF cameras have a large
advantage over other cameras because they can shift the lens and
thereby avoid perspective distortion that a camera with a fix lens
would suffer.

But with today's panoramic tools this seems like much less of an
issue.
This is what a very wide angle photos looks like without shifting
the lens in software.

I had to comeback and check. You did only say shift and not
shift tilt that others seem to have picked up. Good, as no digital
tools are going to take care of tilt. :-)

Digital tools do a good job, and I believe good enough for most
uses. However for those who are really serious there is still a real
difference in the final result when comparing both results where both
have been well done. The stretched parts just are not the same as a
good shifted result. Of course lenses are not all the same and there
are many factors to consider.
Back in the old days we use to do much of this kind of thing in
the darkroom buy tilting the paper holder.

But, unless you had a tilting lens panel and could use Scheimpflug,
you must have had to stop down a *lot* (and thus lose a lot of
resolution).

I did have a tilting lens stages and I also used an enlarger that had a
tilting negative stage.

Durst Laborator S-45, I bet, Joseph?
Mine is still gathering dust. But it got me out of a lot of mistakes that I
didn't catch when making the exposures. I have spent many hours standing in
the darkroom while trying to dodge/burn in a gradual manner to keep the far
point of the enlargement from getting not enough exposure, while the closer
side doesn't get too dark. Sometimes, the print would take Ÿ64 for the DOF
and I'd be waving my hands for five to six minutes. The good ol' days,
indeed! ;-)


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

George Kerby wrote:
On 10/31/05 12:46 PM, in article
, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

David Littlewood wrote:
In article , Joseph
Meehan writes
Scott W wrote:
I have read from a number of people the LF cameras have a large
advantage over other cameras because they can shift the lens and
thereby avoid perspective distortion that a camera with a fix lens
would suffer.

But with today's panoramic tools this seems like much less of an
issue.
This is what a very wide angle photos looks like without shifting
the lens in software.

I had to comeback and check. You did only say shift and not
shift tilt that others seem to have picked up. Good, as no digital
tools are going to take care of tilt. :-)

Digital tools do a good job, and I believe good enough for most
uses. However for those who are really serious there is still a
real difference in the final result when comparing both results
where both have been well done. The stretched parts just are not
the same as a good shifted result. Of course lenses are not all
the same and there are many factors to consider.
Back in the old days we use to do much of this kind of thing in
the darkroom buy tilting the paper holder.

But, unless you had a tilting lens panel and could use Scheimpflug,
you must have had to stop down a *lot* (and thus lose a lot of
resolution).

I did have a tilting lens stages and I also used an enlarger
that had a tilting negative stage.

Durst Laborator S-45, I bet, Joseph?

The Bessler 23C had the tilting lens. I still have that one in my
basement, next to the Omega 4x5. The one with the tilting negative stage
was old 40 years ago when I was working for that photo studio that had it.
I can't remember what it was, but I doubt if it was a Durst.

Mine is still gathering dust. But it got me out of a lot of mistakes
that I
didn't catch when making the exposures. I have spent many hours
standing in
the darkroom while trying to dodge/burn in a gradual manner to keep
the far
point of the enlargement from getting not enough exposure, while the
closer
side doesn't get too dark. Sometimes, the print would take Y64 for
the DOF
and I'd be waving my hands for five to six minutes. The good ol' days,
indeed! ;-)


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com The
Worlds Uncensored News Source

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

223rem wrote:

Scott W wrote:
I have read from a number of people the LF cameras have a large
advantage over other cameras because they can shift the lens and
thereby avoid perspective distortion that a camera with a fix lens
would suffer.

But with today's panoramic tools this seems like much less of an
issue.
This is what a very wide angle photos looks like without shifting the
lens in software.
http://www.pbase.com/camping05/image/51504534/large
Note how everything seems to be pointing in as you good up in the
photos.

This is the same panoramic but with shifting the center of view
http://www.pbase.com/camping05/image/51504652/large

To see a higher resolution view of either of these two photos click on
original.

Now this photos does not have the resolution of a LF camera, but then
this was made from just four photos stitched together. There is little
limit to the resolution, just add more photos. This is what 16 photos
stitched together look like.

BTW I am using PTGui to stitch the photos.

Scott


Nice, but that fat assed lady completely ruined it


If your eyesight/monitor was/were any good, you would see that she has a
jersey/jumper tied by the arms round her waist, and you're seeing the
body of the garment. Seems you're the fat ass.

Colin D.