Another nail in the view camera coffin?

Donn Cave wrote:
Quoth Leonard Evens :
| brian wrote:
...
| I agree that you can't change line of sight, since that is fixed by
| the position of the entrance pupil of the lens. However, a view
| camera can't change the line of sight any more than a software
| transformation. So what's the point here??
|
| This is the point. With any camera you CHOOSE the line of sight based
| on what you are trying to accomplish. With the fixed camera, you would
| usually have to choose a DIFFERENT line of sight than you would with a
| view camera if you have in mind post exposure digital manipulation.
| Once it is chosen, you can't change it by a plane projective
| transformation of the image.
|
| Consider the typical example of trying to take a picture of a building
| and avoiding having the sides converge vertically. To do that with a
| "fixed" camera, you point it up and then transform the image digitally
| (or optically in an enlarger) so that the sides are parallel. To do it
| with a view camera, you use a rise without changing the line of sight.
| So in the two cases, you have different lines of sight, which result in
| different (three dimensional) relations among elements of the image.

That's an odd way to think of "line of sight", to me. I'd say
you raise the line of sight with a front rise movement. More
about that below.

| All I'm saying is that once you fix the position of the lens, then you
| can play all the shifting and tilting games you want with the rear
| standard, and still be able to duplicate the resulting geometrical
| effects in software.
|
| No. Consider the following example.
|
| Suppose you are taking a picture of a building facade and you don't want
| the sides of the building to appear in the picture, but you can't place
| the camera centered on the building because something is in the way.
| With a view camera, you would place the camera off to one side, with the
| lens axis still perpendicular to the building facade, and use a
| horizontal shift. This will have absolutely no effect on the relations
| of the elements of the facade to one another.
|
| Now suppose you want to do the same thing with a camera without shifts.
| You would have to move to the same location and point the camera so it
| makes an angle with the building facade. Now most likely you will have
| a picture with the front and one side showing and the top and bottom of
| each converging to vanishing points. You can now digitally correct the
| converging horizontals of the facade so they are parallel, but you can't
| get rid of the image of the side by a projective transformation.

That's really not right. For another thought experiment, let your
man with the view camera stay where he is, center the standards
and adjust the camera so that its body points directly at the subject,
like the fixed camera. At this point the two cameras presumably are
equivalent.

Now let him rotate the front and rear standards so they are parallel
with the building, as they were in the shift configuration. During
this procedure, does a side wall disappear from view? No!

Yes, Mea culpa, mea culpa! I let myself get carried away largely
because of a gut feeling that things were different and went off on a
totally wrong tangent. But see my other posting to see why it is not
that simple. In my experience, you usually have to use a different
postion when you tilt the camera upward rather than using a shift, and I
think I identified why. But perhaps I am wrong even about that.

This is
a rear swing movement that changes size relationships and shaves only
a small fraction of an inch off the image width.

At this point, the camera configuration is the same as it was with
the shift - same rendition, same focus.


Shift can be simply transformed into front and rear swing, and with
that rear swing we are back to projective transformation. (Plus
the focus effect of the front swing, which you can have if I get
to cover the same field of view with a lens a third or fourth the
focal length.) Likewise, front rise can be precisely transformed
into front and rear tilt.

I've agreed all along that you can do it by changing the focal length.
but then you have to crop. I have to think about it some more, but I
think you may be able to do it with the same focal length and the same
position, but again you have to crop as part of the digital
manipulation. Alternately, you can change the position and increase the
size of the image digitally.


Donn

Donn Cave wrote:
Quoth Leonard Evens :
| brian wrote:
...
| I agree that you can't change line of sight, since that is fixed by
| the position of the entrance pupil of the lens. However, a view
| camera can't change the line of sight any more than a software
| transformation. So what's the point here??
|
| This is the point. With any camera you CHOOSE the line of sight based
| on what you are trying to accomplish. With the fixed camera, you would
| usually have to choose a DIFFERENT line of sight than you would with a
| view camera if you have in mind post exposure digital manipulation.
| Once it is chosen, you can't change it by a plane projective
| transformation of the image.
|
| Consider the typical example of trying to take a picture of a building
| and avoiding having the sides converge vertically. To do that with a
| "fixed" camera, you point it up and then transform the image digitally
| (or optically in an enlarger) so that the sides are parallel. To do it
| with a view camera, you use a rise without changing the line of sight.
| So in the two cases, you have different lines of sight, which result in
| different (three dimensional) relations among elements of the image.

That's an odd way to think of "line of sight", to me. I'd say
you raise the line of sight with a front rise movement. More
about that below.

| All I'm saying is that once you fix the position of the lens, then you
| can play all the shifting and tilting games you want with the rear
| standard, and still be able to duplicate the resulting geometrical
| effects in software.
|
| No. Consider the following example.
|
| Suppose you are taking a picture of a building facade and you don't want
| the sides of the building to appear in the picture, but you can't place
| the camera centered on the building because something is in the way.
| With a view camera, you would place the camera off to one side, with the
| lens axis still perpendicular to the building facade, and use a
| horizontal shift. This will have absolutely no effect on the relations
| of the elements of the facade to one another.
|
| Now suppose you want to do the same thing with a camera without shifts.
| You would have to move to the same location and point the camera so it
| makes an angle with the building facade. Now most likely you will have
| a picture with the front and one side showing and the top and bottom of
| each converging to vanishing points. You can now digitally correct the
| converging horizontals of the facade so they are parallel, but you can't
| get rid of the image of the side by a projective transformation.

That's really not right. For another thought experiment, let your
man with the view camera stay where he is, center the standards
and adjust the camera so that its body points directly at the subject,
like the fixed camera. At this point the two cameras presumably are
equivalent.

Now let him rotate the front and rear standards so they are parallel
with the building, as they were in the shift configuration. During
this procedure, does a side wall disappear from view? No!

Yes, Mea culpa, mea culpa! I let myself get carried away largely
because of a gut feeling that things were different and went off on a
totally wrong tangent. But see my other posting to see why it is not
that simple. In my experience, you usually have to use a different
postion when you tilt the camera upward rather than using a shift, and I
think I identified why. But perhaps I am wrong even about that.

This is
a rear swing movement that changes size relationships and shaves only
a small fraction of an inch off the image width.

At this point, the camera configuration is the same as it was with
the shift - same rendition, same focus.


Shift can be simply transformed into front and rear swing, and with
that rear swing we are back to projective transformation. (Plus
the focus effect of the front swing, which you can have if I get
to cover the same field of view with a lens a third or fourth the
focal length.) Likewise, front rise can be precisely transformed
into front and rear tilt.

I've agreed all along that you can do it by changing the focal length.
but then you have to crop. I have to think about it some more, but I
think you may be able to do it with the same focal length and the same
position, but again you have to crop as part of the digital
manipulation. Alternately, you can change the position and increase the
size of the image digitally.


Donn

Leonard Evens wrote in message ...

Lots of snipping...

Certainly, that is true. Note though that by stitching several pictures
together that way, you can't reproduce a single image gotten using a
wide angle lens covering the same area, whether the camera is a view
camera or not. In a lot of ways it may be a more natural looking
picture avoiding the typical wide angle "distortions". It can be
viewed more normally by the human visual system, but it still won't be
the same as a single view camera image covering the same area because of
the different lines of sight employed.

Wrong. You *really can* reproduce a single image taken with a wider
angle lens covering the same area. If I choose to use a rectilinear
mapping it will have exactly the same wide angle "distortions".

Consider the typical example of trying to take a picture of a building
and avoiding having the sides converge vertically. To do that with a
"fixed" camera, you point it up and then transform the image digitally
(or optically in an enlarger) so that the sides are parallel. To do it
with a view camera, you use a rise without changing the line of sight.
So in the two cases, you have different lines of sight, which result in
different (three dimensional) relations among elements of the image.


Line of sight is determined by where you put the entrance pupil of the
lens in relation to the objects you are photographing. Tilting the
lens makes no difference as long as the center of the entrance pupil
remains stationary. Bear in mind that there are an infinite number of
lines of sight in any photograph, with each line of sight passing from
object space through the entrance pupil on to a point in the image
plane.

To repeat, I can create *precisely* the same image geometry by digital
manipulation of an image created with a camera pointed upwards that I
can by lowering the rear standard of a view camera.


No. Consider the following example.

Suppose you are taking a picture of a building facade and you don't want
the sides of the building to appear in the picture, but you can't place
the camera centered on the building because something is in the way.
With a view camera, you would place the camera off to one side, with the
lens axis still perpendicular to the building facade, and use a
horizontal shift. This will have absolutely no effect on the relations
of the elements of the facade to one another.

Now suppose you want to do the same thing with a camera without shifts.
You would have to move to the same location and point the camera so it
makes an angle with the building facade. Now most likely you will have
a picture with the front and one side showing and the top and bottom of
each converging to vanishing points. You can now digitally correct the
converging horizontals of the facade so they are parallel, but you can't
get rid of the image of the side by a projective transformation.

Now of course, you can use other digital techniques to clone out that
side, but that is a different issue. Remember that the three
dimensional relations can get very complicated. I can always up the
ante in my examples, and you can think of some digital manipulation, but
not a projective transformation, to deal with it. But after a while you
would in fact just be using the original image as a guide and in effect
composing a new digital image having little to do with the original but
simulating some version of it.


In your example the side of the building will still be visible in the
view camera shot despite the horizontal shift and despite keeping the
lens axis perpendicular to the facade. Just as it would be if you did
a digital remapping to make the facade square. If you place the lens
at a vantage point where both the front and side of a building are
visible, then no amount of shifting and tilting will make the side of
the building disappear. If you own a view camera and a lens you can
easily prove this to yourself without even going to the trouble of
exposing and developting film.


Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

Leonard Evens wrote in message ...

Lots of snipping...

Certainly, that is true. Note though that by stitching several pictures
together that way, you can't reproduce a single image gotten using a
wide angle lens covering the same area, whether the camera is a view
camera or not. In a lot of ways it may be a more natural looking
picture avoiding the typical wide angle "distortions". It can be
viewed more normally by the human visual system, but it still won't be
the same as a single view camera image covering the same area because of
the different lines of sight employed.

Wrong. You *really can* reproduce a single image taken with a wider
angle lens covering the same area. If I choose to use a rectilinear
mapping it will have exactly the same wide angle "distortions".

Consider the typical example of trying to take a picture of a building
and avoiding having the sides converge vertically. To do that with a
"fixed" camera, you point it up and then transform the image digitally
(or optically in an enlarger) so that the sides are parallel. To do it
with a view camera, you use a rise without changing the line of sight.
So in the two cases, you have different lines of sight, which result in
different (three dimensional) relations among elements of the image.


Line of sight is determined by where you put the entrance pupil of the
lens in relation to the objects you are photographing. Tilting the
lens makes no difference as long as the center of the entrance pupil
remains stationary. Bear in mind that there are an infinite number of
lines of sight in any photograph, with each line of sight passing from
object space through the entrance pupil on to a point in the image
plane.

To repeat, I can create *precisely* the same image geometry by digital
manipulation of an image created with a camera pointed upwards that I
can by lowering the rear standard of a view camera.


No. Consider the following example.

Suppose you are taking a picture of a building facade and you don't want
the sides of the building to appear in the picture, but you can't place
the camera centered on the building because something is in the way.
With a view camera, you would place the camera off to one side, with the
lens axis still perpendicular to the building facade, and use a
horizontal shift. This will have absolutely no effect on the relations
of the elements of the facade to one another.

Now suppose you want to do the same thing with a camera without shifts.
You would have to move to the same location and point the camera so it
makes an angle with the building facade. Now most likely you will have
a picture with the front and one side showing and the top and bottom of
each converging to vanishing points. You can now digitally correct the
converging horizontals of the facade so they are parallel, but you can't
get rid of the image of the side by a projective transformation.

Now of course, you can use other digital techniques to clone out that
side, but that is a different issue. Remember that the three
dimensional relations can get very complicated. I can always up the
ante in my examples, and you can think of some digital manipulation, but
not a projective transformation, to deal with it. But after a while you
would in fact just be using the original image as a guide and in effect
composing a new digital image having little to do with the original but
simulating some version of it.


In your example the side of the building will still be visible in the
view camera shot despite the horizontal shift and despite keeping the
lens axis perpendicular to the facade. Just as it would be if you did
a digital remapping to make the facade square. If you place the lens
at a vantage point where both the front and side of a building are
visible, then no amount of shifting and tilting will make the side of
the building disappear. If you own a view camera and a lens you can
easily prove this to yourself without even going to the trouble of
exposing and developting film.


Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

In article ,
(Scott M. Knowles) wrote:

the two features that view cameras still
have over other formats are the ability to adjust perspective and
the plane of focus.

You must not use a view camera. Perhaps you only use a press camera, so
you would not know that the view camera allows control over the shape of
an object by using back movements. That is why a camera with an
adjustable back is used when doing 3-point perspective shots of products.

A view camera, as well as some medium format cameras also allows control
of the plane of sharp focus with front or back movements.

Any camera, from a disposable to a view camera, will allow the
photographer to change the perspective as that is simply a matter of
changing the angle of the camera to the subject.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

In article ,
(Scott M. Knowles) wrote:

the two features that view cameras still
have over other formats are the ability to adjust perspective and
the plane of focus.

You must not use a view camera. Perhaps you only use a press camera, so
you would not know that the view camera allows control over the shape of
an object by using back movements. That is why a camera with an
adjustable back is used when doing 3-point perspective shots of products.

A view camera, as well as some medium format cameras also allows control
of the plane of sharp focus with front or back movements.

Any camera, from a disposable to a view camera, will allow the
photographer to change the perspective as that is simply a matter of
changing the angle of the camera to the subject.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

brian wrote:
Leonard Evens wrote in message ...

Lots of snipping...

Certainly, that is true. Note though that by stitching several pictures
together that way, you can't reproduce a single image gotten using a
wide angle lens covering the same area, whether the camera is a view
camera or not. In a lot of ways it may be a more natural looking
picture avoiding the typical wide angle "distortions". It can be
viewed more normally by the human visual system, but it still won't be
the same as a single view camera image covering the same area because of
the different lines of sight employed.


Wrong. You *really can* reproduce a single image taken with a wider
angle lens covering the same area. If I choose to use a rectilinear
mapping it will have exactly the same wide angle "distortions".

Yes. I agree. I was wrong about most of what I said. My only excuse
is that I've had very little sleep for the past several days. Or maybe
I'm just getting senile. I'm not usually wrong about such things, but I
certainly was this time.



Consider the typical example of trying to take a picture of a building
and avoiding having the sides converge vertically. To do that with a
"fixed" camera, you point it up and then transform the image digitally
(or optically in an enlarger) so that the sides are parallel. To do it
with a view camera, you use a rise without changing the line of sight.
So in the two cases, you have different lines of sight, which result in
different (three dimensional) relations among elements of the image.



Line of sight is determined by where you put the entrance pupil of the
lens in relation to the objects you are photographing. Tilting the
lens makes no difference as long as the center of the entrance pupil
remains stationary. Bear in mind that there are an infinite number of
lines of sight in any photograph, with each line of sight passing from
object space through the entrance pupil on to a point in the image
plane.

Agreed.


To repeat, I can create *precisely* the same image geometry by digital
manipulation of an image created with a camera pointed upwards that I
can by lowering the rear standard of a view camera.

Yes, you can, but I don't think you can do it without either stitching
or using a different focal length lens. See my other response.



No. Consider the following example.

Suppose you are taking a picture of a building facade and you don't want
the sides of the building to appear in the picture, but you can't place
the camera centered on the building because something is in the way.
With a view camera, you would place the camera off to one side, with the
lens axis still perpendicular to the building facade, and use a
horizontal shift. This will have absolutely no effect on the relations
of the elements of the facade to one another.

Now suppose you want to do the same thing with a camera without shifts.
You would have to move to the same location and point the camera so it
makes an angle with the building facade. Now most likely you will have
a picture with the front and one side showing and the top and bottom of
each converging to vanishing points. You can now digitally correct the
converging horizontals of the facade so they are parallel, but you can't
get rid of the image of the side by a projective transformation.

Now of course, you can use other digital techniques to clone out that
side, but that is a different issue. Remember that the three
dimensional relations can get very complicated. I can always up the
ante in my examples, and you can think of some digital manipulation, but
not a projective transformation, to deal with it. But after a while you
would in fact just be using the original image as a guide and in effect
composing a new digital image having little to do with the original but
simulating some version of it.



In your example the side of the building will still be visible in the
view camera shot despite the horizontal shift and despite keeping the
lens axis perpendicular to the facade.

Yes. I realized that shortly after I posted all that nonsense. I was
misled by the mirror example, which is not really an example, but sounds
convincing until you think about it.

Just as it would be if you did
a digital remapping to make the facade square. If you place the lens
at a vantage point where both the front and side of a building are
visible, then no amount of shifting and tilting will make the side of
the building disappear. If you own a view camera and a lens you can
easily prove this to yourself without even going to the trouble of
exposing and developting film.

This is actually getting more interesting as I make more calculations.
I think one thing we have been ignoring up to now, by mutual agreement
may be more important than we have let it be, at least for large format
cameras. When you point the camera up at something like a building
facade, the exact subject plane may shift by quite a lot. For example,
suppose you are using a 150 mm lens on 4 x 5, and you first focus with
the camera level. Now suppose you can tilt so the building facade is
contained in the frame but without any movements of the back. A rough
caclulation shows that the film plane will be tilted roughly 20 degrees
with respect to subject plane, and so also will be the exact plane of
focus. Unless I'm making another mistake, which is quite possible given
my recent track record, that means that if you refocus so where the lens
axis meets the subject plane is in focus, you will have to shift the
rear standard by about 10 mm from where it was in the level position.
That means you would need a very high f-number to have both ends of the
building in focus.

This is relevant because if you want everything in focus, you had better
focus approximately in the middle of the building. If you do that,
compared to what you would capture with a rise, the whole image would
drop and also get a bit smaller. The decrease in height can be dealt
with by a transformation, but I think the only way to deal with keeping
the base of the building in view---with focal length and camera position
fixed---is by focusing lower down on the building, thus excacerabting
the focusing issues.

If I'm still getting something wrong, please let me know.

Of course this may not be an issue for you if you use many relatively
small format digital images which you stitch together after appropriate
manipulation. But that wasn't what Robert Feinman was originally
talking about. To make a fair comparison, you either have to use the
same format for both fixed camera and view camera or you have to stitch
multiple images. I agree that with the latter, you can reproduce almost
anything because you are not limited by a fixed frame size.



Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

brian wrote:
Leonard Evens wrote in message ...

Lots of snipping...

Certainly, that is true. Note though that by stitching several pictures
together that way, you can't reproduce a single image gotten using a
wide angle lens covering the same area, whether the camera is a view
camera or not. In a lot of ways it may be a more natural looking
picture avoiding the typical wide angle "distortions". It can be
viewed more normally by the human visual system, but it still won't be
the same as a single view camera image covering the same area because of
the different lines of sight employed.


Wrong. You *really can* reproduce a single image taken with a wider
angle lens covering the same area. If I choose to use a rectilinear
mapping it will have exactly the same wide angle "distortions".

Yes. I agree. I was wrong about most of what I said. My only excuse
is that I've had very little sleep for the past several days. Or maybe
I'm just getting senile. I'm not usually wrong about such things, but I
certainly was this time.



Consider the typical example of trying to take a picture of a building
and avoiding having the sides converge vertically. To do that with a
"fixed" camera, you point it up and then transform the image digitally
(or optically in an enlarger) so that the sides are parallel. To do it
with a view camera, you use a rise without changing the line of sight.
So in the two cases, you have different lines of sight, which result in
different (three dimensional) relations among elements of the image.



Line of sight is determined by where you put the entrance pupil of the
lens in relation to the objects you are photographing. Tilting the
lens makes no difference as long as the center of the entrance pupil
remains stationary. Bear in mind that there are an infinite number of
lines of sight in any photograph, with each line of sight passing from
object space through the entrance pupil on to a point in the image
plane.

Agreed.


To repeat, I can create *precisely* the same image geometry by digital
manipulation of an image created with a camera pointed upwards that I
can by lowering the rear standard of a view camera.

Yes, you can, but I don't think you can do it without either stitching
or using a different focal length lens. See my other response.



No. Consider the following example.

Suppose you are taking a picture of a building facade and you don't want
the sides of the building to appear in the picture, but you can't place
the camera centered on the building because something is in the way.
With a view camera, you would place the camera off to one side, with the
lens axis still perpendicular to the building facade, and use a
horizontal shift. This will have absolutely no effect on the relations
of the elements of the facade to one another.

Now suppose you want to do the same thing with a camera without shifts.
You would have to move to the same location and point the camera so it
makes an angle with the building facade. Now most likely you will have
a picture with the front and one side showing and the top and bottom of
each converging to vanishing points. You can now digitally correct the
converging horizontals of the facade so they are parallel, but you can't
get rid of the image of the side by a projective transformation.

Now of course, you can use other digital techniques to clone out that
side, but that is a different issue. Remember that the three
dimensional relations can get very complicated. I can always up the
ante in my examples, and you can think of some digital manipulation, but
not a projective transformation, to deal with it. But after a while you
would in fact just be using the original image as a guide and in effect
composing a new digital image having little to do with the original but
simulating some version of it.



In your example the side of the building will still be visible in the
view camera shot despite the horizontal shift and despite keeping the
lens axis perpendicular to the facade.

Yes. I realized that shortly after I posted all that nonsense. I was
misled by the mirror example, which is not really an example, but sounds
convincing until you think about it.

Just as it would be if you did
a digital remapping to make the facade square. If you place the lens
at a vantage point where both the front and side of a building are
visible, then no amount of shifting and tilting will make the side of
the building disappear. If you own a view camera and a lens you can
easily prove this to yourself without even going to the trouble of
exposing and developting film.

This is actually getting more interesting as I make more calculations.
I think one thing we have been ignoring up to now, by mutual agreement
may be more important than we have let it be, at least for large format
cameras. When you point the camera up at something like a building
facade, the exact subject plane may shift by quite a lot. For example,
suppose you are using a 150 mm lens on 4 x 5, and you first focus with
the camera level. Now suppose you can tilt so the building facade is
contained in the frame but without any movements of the back. A rough
caclulation shows that the film plane will be tilted roughly 20 degrees
with respect to subject plane, and so also will be the exact plane of
focus. Unless I'm making another mistake, which is quite possible given
my recent track record, that means that if you refocus so where the lens
axis meets the subject plane is in focus, you will have to shift the
rear standard by about 10 mm from where it was in the level position.
That means you would need a very high f-number to have both ends of the
building in focus.

This is relevant because if you want everything in focus, you had better
focus approximately in the middle of the building. If you do that,
compared to what you would capture with a rise, the whole image would
drop and also get a bit smaller. The decrease in height can be dealt
with by a transformation, but I think the only way to deal with keeping
the base of the building in view---with focal length and camera position
fixed---is by focusing lower down on the building, thus excacerabting
the focusing issues.

If I'm still getting something wrong, please let me know.

Of course this may not be an issue for you if you use many relatively
small format digital images which you stitch together after appropriate
manipulation. But that wasn't what Robert Feinman was originally
talking about. To make a fair comparison, you either have to use the
same format for both fixed camera and view camera or you have to stitch
multiple images. I agree that with the latter, you can reproduce almost
anything because you are not limited by a fixed frame size.



Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

Bob Salomon wrote:
In article ,
(Scott M. Knowles) wrote:


the two features that view cameras still

have over other formats are the ability to adjust perspective and
the plane of focus.


You must not use a view camera. Perhaps you only use a press camera, so
you would not know that the view camera allows control over the shape of
an object by using back movements. That is why a camera with an
adjustable back is used when doing 3-point perspective shots of products.

The present dicusssion is about what you can do by perspective
transformations of the exposed image. You can do almost anything about
image shape you can do with a back movement that way. I hesitate to say
"anything" because it is easy to ge these things wrong if you don't take
absolutely everything into consideration.


A view camera, as well as some medium format cameras also allows control
of the plane of sharp focus with front or back movements.

Any camera, from a disposable to a view camera, will allow the
photographer to change the perspective as that is simply a matter of
changing the angle of the camera to the subject.

Bob Salomon wrote:
In article ,
(Scott M. Knowles) wrote:


the two features that view cameras still

have over other formats are the ability to adjust perspective and
the plane of focus.


You must not use a view camera. Perhaps you only use a press camera, so
you would not know that the view camera allows control over the shape of
an object by using back movements. That is why a camera with an
adjustable back is used when doing 3-point perspective shots of products.

The present dicusssion is about what you can do by perspective
transformations of the exposed image. You can do almost anything about
image shape you can do with a back movement that way. I hesitate to say
"anything" because it is easy to ge these things wrong if you don't take
absolutely everything into consideration.


A view camera, as well as some medium format cameras also allows control
of the plane of sharp focus with front or back movements.

Any camera, from a disposable to a view camera, will allow the
photographer to change the perspective as that is simply a matter of
changing the angle of the camera to the subject.