did anyone try this: cheap point-n-shoot on the back of a large format beast?

In article , Roland Karlsson
writes
Frank Pittel wrote in
:

: Canon makes Tilt/Shift perspective control lenses for their EF mount.

It's not nearly the same. I've use a tilt/shift lens and most of my
photography is done in LF. The view camera is far more flexible and is
capable of doing what a tilt/shift never could.

Still - this newsgroup is about digital photography. The fantastic
acrobatic things you can do with a LF are not all relevant when you
can use photo editing software. High resolution in combination with
focus control is all taht is left.

1 Have you actually looked at the header?

2 What is wrong with trying to broaden people's horizon anyway -
describing when a small format digital camera is *unsuitable* is surely
perfectly valid material for those who really want to learn.

3 Many of the "fantastic" things you can do with a LF camera can in no
way be replicated in software. To give two examples: (1) the range of
movements on a decent LF camera is way bigger than any 35mm shift lens;
(2) Control of the plane of focus is a vital part of the flexibility - I
know you mentioned it, but rather dismissively.

David
--
David Littlewood

In article , Roland Karlsson
writes
Frank Pittel wrote in
:

: Canon makes Tilt/Shift perspective control lenses for their EF mount.

It's not nearly the same. I've use a tilt/shift lens and most of my
photography is done in LF. The view camera is far more flexible and is
capable of doing what a tilt/shift never could.

Still - this newsgroup is about digital photography. The fantastic
acrobatic things you can do with a LF are not all relevant when you
can use photo editing software. High resolution in combination with
focus control is all taht is left.

1 Have you actually looked at the header?

2 What is wrong with trying to broaden people's horizon anyway -
describing when a small format digital camera is *unsuitable* is surely
perfectly valid material for those who really want to learn.

3 Many of the "fantastic" things you can do with a LF camera can in no
way be replicated in software. To give two examples: (1) the range of
movements on a decent LF camera is way bigger than any 35mm shift lens;
(2) Control of the plane of focus is a vital part of the flexibility - I
know you mentioned it, but rather dismissively.

David
--
David Littlewood

In article , Frank Pittel
writes
In rec.photo.equipment.large-format Mark M
wrote:

: "chibitul" wrote in message
: ...

: yes, that is what I mean. Most cameras have a macro mode, but you can
: also put the camera about 0.5 meters away from the ground glass.
:
: Ok, the image is dim, but this is large format camera here, not sports
: or action. we're talking landscapes, biuldings, etc, right? what's wrong
: with a slow shutter speed?
:
: And do you really need the ground glass? what if you *remove* the ground
: glass, the image will act as an object for the digicam. it should work.

: How will the "image act as an object" without the glass?

I was wondering that myself. Without the ground glass there is no image.

This is a misconception. The lens focusses the incoming light to give a
real image in the plane of the ground glass. The ground glass simply
makes it visible to the eye from any distance*/direction; without it you
would have to use an eyepiece or viewing telescope to convert that
primary real image into one your eye can accommodate.

*Subject, obviously, to the limit of the close focus ability of your
eye.

I missed the start of this thread, but going by the thread title the
answer is yes, it is possible, with no screen. It is not a lot different
from the kind of setup used in photomicrography and photomacrography.
However, the image will be very much enlarged and a lot of the
resolution advantage of the large format would disappear. You would get
very poor results trying to do it with a ground glass screen in place

What I find a more interesting question is whether anyone has found a
reasonably priced scanner which can be adapted to fit the back of an 5x4
camera, to get the facility of a £15,000 digital back for a few
£hundreds.

David
--
David Littlewood

In article , Frank Pittel
writes
In rec.photo.equipment.large-format Mark M
wrote:

: "chibitul" wrote in message
: ...

: yes, that is what I mean. Most cameras have a macro mode, but you can
: also put the camera about 0.5 meters away from the ground glass.
:
: Ok, the image is dim, but this is large format camera here, not sports
: or action. we're talking landscapes, biuldings, etc, right? what's wrong
: with a slow shutter speed?
:
: And do you really need the ground glass? what if you *remove* the ground
: glass, the image will act as an object for the digicam. it should work.

: How will the "image act as an object" without the glass?

I was wondering that myself. Without the ground glass there is no image.

This is a misconception. The lens focusses the incoming light to give a
real image in the plane of the ground glass. The ground glass simply
makes it visible to the eye from any distance*/direction; without it you
would have to use an eyepiece or viewing telescope to convert that
primary real image into one your eye can accommodate.

*Subject, obviously, to the limit of the close focus ability of your
eye.

I missed the start of this thread, but going by the thread title the
answer is yes, it is possible, with no screen. It is not a lot different
from the kind of setup used in photomicrography and photomacrography.
However, the image will be very much enlarged and a lot of the
resolution advantage of the large format would disappear. You would get
very poor results trying to do it with a ground glass screen in place

What I find a more interesting question is whether anyone has found a
reasonably priced scanner which can be adapted to fit the back of an 5x4
camera, to get the facility of a £15,000 digital back for a few
£hundreds.

David
--
David Littlewood

In article , Frank Pittel
writes
In rec.photo.equipment.large-format Mark M
wrote:

: "chibitul" wrote in message
: ...

: yes, that is what I mean. Most cameras have a macro mode, but you can
: also put the camera about 0.5 meters away from the ground glass.
:
: Ok, the image is dim, but this is large format camera here, not sports
: or action. we're talking landscapes, biuldings, etc, right? what's wrong
: with a slow shutter speed?
:
: And do you really need the ground glass? what if you *remove* the ground
: glass, the image will act as an object for the digicam. it should work.

: How will the "image act as an object" without the glass?

I was wondering that myself. Without the ground glass there is no image.

This is a misconception. The lens focusses the incoming light to give a
real image in the plane of the ground glass. The ground glass simply
makes it visible to the eye from any distance*/direction; without it you
would have to use an eyepiece or viewing telescope to convert that
primary real image into one your eye can accommodate.

*Subject, obviously, to the limit of the close focus ability of your
eye.

I missed the start of this thread, but going by the thread title the
answer is yes, it is possible, with no screen. It is not a lot different
from the kind of setup used in photomicrography and photomacrography.
However, the image will be very much enlarged and a lot of the
resolution advantage of the large format would disappear. You would get
very poor results trying to do it with a ground glass screen in place

What I find a more interesting question is whether anyone has found a
reasonably priced scanner which can be adapted to fit the back of an 5x4
camera, to get the facility of a £15,000 digital back for a few
£hundreds.

David
--
David Littlewood

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
[...]
What I find a more interesting question is whether anyone has found a
reasonably priced scanner which can be adapted to fit the back of an 5x4
camera, to get the facility of a £15,000 digital back for a few
£hundreds.

Yes, years ago. Rather famous experiment. See:
http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-better-scanner-cam.html

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
[...]
What I find a more interesting question is whether anyone has found a
reasonably priced scanner which can be adapted to fit the back of an 5x4
camera, to get the facility of a £15,000 digital back for a few
£hundreds.

Yes, years ago. Rather famous experiment. See:
http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-better-scanner-cam.html

David Littlewood wrote in :

1 Have you actually looked at the header?

Yepp.

2 What is wrong with trying to broaden people's horizon anyway -
describing when a small format digital camera is *unsuitable* is surely
perfectly valid material for those who really want to learn.

Nothing.

3 Many of the "fantastic" things you can do with a LF camera can in no
way be replicated in software. To give two examples: (1) the range of
movements on a decent LF camera is way bigger than any 35mm shift lens;
(2) Control of the plane of focus is a vital part of the flexibility - I
know you mentioned it, but rather dismissively.

You misunderstood my post. I own LF cameras and I know what you can
do with them. It is fascinating and very useful things. I also have
made lots of darkroom work with masks and dodging and solarisation
and I don't really remember all of it. Also fascinating and very
useful things.

My point was only that most of all those arcane arts we elder
photographers used to do are now obsolete due to digital image
manipulation.

Most of the things you can do with the large format camera you
can do in software. Maybe I have missed something, but the only thing
you cannot do is focus plane control (except for resolution of course).


/Roland

David Littlewood wrote in :

1 Have you actually looked at the header?

Yepp.

2 What is wrong with trying to broaden people's horizon anyway -
describing when a small format digital camera is *unsuitable* is surely
perfectly valid material for those who really want to learn.

Nothing.

3 Many of the "fantastic" things you can do with a LF camera can in no
way be replicated in software. To give two examples: (1) the range of
movements on a decent LF camera is way bigger than any 35mm shift lens;
(2) Control of the plane of focus is a vital part of the flexibility - I
know you mentioned it, but rather dismissively.

You misunderstood my post. I own LF cameras and I know what you can
do with them. It is fascinating and very useful things. I also have
made lots of darkroom work with masks and dodging and solarisation
and I don't really remember all of it. Also fascinating and very
useful things.

My point was only that most of all those arcane arts we elder
photographers used to do are now obsolete due to digital image
manipulation.

Most of the things you can do with the large format camera you
can do in software. Maybe I have missed something, but the only thing
you cannot do is focus plane control (except for resolution of course).


/Roland

David Littlewood wrote in
:

Whilst this is undoubtedly true - I also use both - the Canon TS-E is
far more flexible in terms of how far you can carry it, and how long. It
is fine for most straightforward building photography on a film body; on
a restricted-FoV DSLR it suffers rather from inadequate FoV.


On a DSLR you don't need it for building photography.


/Roland