Rear tilt focus?

"Fred Leif" <fsleif.RemoveThis@starband.net> wrote in message
news:d69cb$425ae6aa$94403028$26716@STARBAND.NET...
 > 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
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.mattclara.com" target="_blank">www.mattclara.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Rear tilt focus? 

"Matt Clara" <no.emailz.TakeThisOut@this.guys.expense> wrote in message
news:gpT6e.4181104$Zm5.660254@news.easynews.com...
 > "Fred Leif" <fsleif.TakeThisOut@starband.net> 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.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Rear tilt focus? 

In article <gpT6e.4181104$Zm5.660254@news.easynews.com>,
"Matt Clara" <no.emailz.RemoveThis@this.guys.expense> wrote:

 > "Fred Leif" <fsleif.RemoveThis@starband.net> wrote in message
 > news:d69cb$425ae6aa$94403028$26716@STARBAND.NET...
  > > 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.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Rear tilt focus? 

In article <d69cb$425ae6aa$94403028$26716@STARBAND.NET>,
Fred Leif <fsleif.RemoveThis@starband.net> 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).<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Rear tilt focus? 

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown.DeleteThis@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:edlti2-h48.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
 > In article <d69cb$425ae6aa$94403028$26716@STARBAND.NET>,
 > Fred Leif <fsleif.DeleteThis@starband.net> 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.

It is called Tilt and it does not do the same thing that Shift does.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Rear tilt focus? 

Chris Brown wrote:
 > In article <d69cb$425ae6aa$94403028$26716@STARBAND.NET>,
 > Fred Leif <fsleif RemoveThis @starband.net> 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 equivalent to a fall and a tilt. If the front can be tilted
back to the vertical, it is exactly equivalent to shifting the lens
down. This is a common method used by large format photographers.

However, in your example, you are assuming the lens can't be tilted back
to the vertical. Then, as you say, you are still using the central
part of the image circle, so lens coverage is less of an issue. But
since the front is now tilted forward, the exact subject plane is no
longer parallel to the film plane. So you will certainly have to stop
down, perhaps further than the lens is capable of, in order to get the
subject entirely in focus.

It is important to note in discussions like these that the only thing
that matters is the relation of the lens and lens plane to the film
plane and the subject. It doesn't matter how you got them where they
are, if the final relations are the same, you will get the same result.
In principle, if you have sufficient movements, you can mimic any
front movement by a back movement combined with a rotation of the whole
camera. The real differences between front and back movements arise
from the practical differences forced on you by the construction of the
camera.

 >
 > 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).<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Rear tilt focus? 

On 11 Apr 2005 11:08:44 -0700, aldenphoto.DeleteThis@aol.com wrote:

 >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?


"Affect focus?" Yes, and that's how I use it,
at least with my landscape photography so far.

Often my goal/strategy is to achieve good focus
from foreground to infinity, and I generally
do that with a small back tilt.

I believe the "proper" way to do this is with
front tilt, but the small perspective distortion
(from back tilt) isn't really noticeable in
general landscape pix.

My Shen-Hao has front tilt, but the back tilt
seems better suited to fine control.


rafe b.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.terrapinphoto.com" target="_blank">http://www.terrapinphoto.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Rear tilt focus? 

In article <115odg8ivrtanc9.TakeThisOut@news.supernews.com>, jjs <jjs.TakeThisOut@jjs.jjs> wrote:
 >"Chris Brown" <cpbrown.TakeThisOut@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
 >news:edlti2-h48.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
  >> In article <d69cb$425ae6aa$94403028$26716@STARBAND.NET>,
  >> Fred Leif <fsleif.TakeThisOut@starband.net> 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.
 >
 >It is called Tilt and it does not do the same thing that Shift does.

That's why I said "similar", in that you can combine a back tile with a tilt
of the whole camera to get rid of, for example, converging verticals on a
tall building, but it has the disadvantage (compared to using a shift to do
the same thing) of giving you a tilted in-focus plane relative to your
subject.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Rear tilt focus? 

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown RemoveThis @ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:r99vi2-589.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
 > In article <115odg8ivrtanc9 RemoveThis @news.supernews.com>, jjs <jjs RemoveThis @jjs.jjs> wrote:
  >>"Chris Brown" <cpbrown RemoveThis @ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
  >>news:edlti2-h48.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
   >>> In article <d69cb$425ae6aa$94403028$26716@STARBAND.NET>,
   >>> Fred Leif <fsleif RemoveThis @starband.net> 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.
  >>
  >>It is called Tilt and it does not do the same thing that Shift does.
 >
 > That's why I said "similar", in that you can combine a back tile with a
 > tilt
 > of the whole camera to get rid of, for example, converging verticals on a
 > tall building, but it has the disadvantage (compared to using a shift to
 > do
 > the same thing) of giving you a tilted in-focus plane relative to your
 > subject.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Rear tilt focus? 

"jjs" <jjs.RemoveThis@jjs.jjs> wrote in message
news:115o42j7jhhema8@news.supernews.com...
 > "Matt Clara" <no.emailz.RemoveThis@this.guys.expense> wrote in message
 > news:gpT6e.4181104$Zm5.660254@news.easynews.com...
  > > "Fred Leif" <fsleif.RemoveThis@starband.net> 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.
 >
 >

Yes, it just seemed that with his statement,

"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."

he's recommending back swings and tilts over front swings and tilts without
emphasizing the fact that back swings and tilts will fundamentally effect
composition of the subject on the film plane, where front swings and tilts
will not.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.mattclara.com" target="_blank">www.mattclara.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Rear tilt focus? 

In article <hJt7e.4358697$Zm5.686095@news.easynews.com>,
"Matt Clara" <no.emailz DeleteThis @this.guys.expense> wrote:

 > back swings and tilts will fundamentally effect
 > composition of the subject on the film plane,

No. They will change image shape but the rock will still be in the same
place on the ground glass.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Rear tilt focus? 

Matt Clara wrote:
 > "jjs" <jjs DeleteThis @jjs.jjs> wrote in message
 > news:115o42j7jhhema8@news.supernews.com...
 >
  >>"Matt Clara" <no.emailz DeleteThis @this.guys.expense> wrote in message
  >>news:gpT6e.4181104$Zm5.660254@news.easynews.com...
  >>
   >>>"Fred Leif" <fsleif DeleteThis @starband.net> 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.
  >>
  >>
 >
 >
 > Yes, it just seemed that with his statement,
 >
 > "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."

It is important to note that it is not the back tilt per se that "makes
no special demands on the covering power of the lens". It is the
relation of the swing to the lens axis that results in that. If you
tilt the lens plane, you of course also tilt the lens axis. If you
don't compensate for this by using a back rise so the lens axis is
centered on the frame, then you may run into coverage problems. If you
tilt the back and do nothing else, you don't change the relation of the
lens axis to the center of the frame. but if you then rotate the
camera so the back is again vertical, and you also tilt the front
standard back to vertical, you end up with the same coverage problems
because the configuration is basically the same.

I find that it is best if I try to visualize the film plane, the
position of the frame in that plane, the lens plane, and the lens axis,
all independent of the supporting structures of the camera and bellows.
That reduces everything to the essential geometry and it is easier to
figure out just what is going on.

 >
 > he's recommending back swings and tilts over front swings and tilts without
 > emphasizing the fact that back swings and tilts will fundamentally effect
 > composition of the subject on the film plane, where front swings and tilts
 > will not.
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Rear tilt focus? 

Actually, I wasn't 'recommending' anything. Just providing quotes from a
nice vintage book that I thought would help the original poster.

I certainly wasn't recommending back tilt above front tilt in all cases.
That's up to what you intend to achieve in the photo. A choice to be made.
I thought the reference the book made to Scheimpflug was the key here.

As noted by others, the language the book used regarding 'depth of field' is
now more accurately described as the focus plane or plane of focus.
However, the quotes provide a concise sense of three major ways in which
back swing/tilt can be used. Certainly, they seem to have provoked an
interesting thread.


"Matt Clara" <no.emailz.RemoveThis@this.guys.expense> wrote in message
news:hJt7e.4358697$Zm5.686095@news.easynews.com...
 > "jjs" <jjs.RemoveThis@jjs.jjs> wrote in message
 > news:115o42j7jhhema8@news.supernews.com...
  >> "Matt Clara" <no.emailz.RemoveThis@this.guys.expense> wrote in message
  >> news:gpT6e.4181104$Zm5.660254@news.easynews.com...
   >> > "Fred Leif" <fsleif.RemoveThis@starband.net> wrote
  >>
   >> >> 3. Deliberate control of perspective. In advertising, particularly

snip...

 >
 > he's recommending back swings and tilts over front swings and tilts
 > without
 > emphasizing the fact that back swings and tilts will fundamentally effect
 > composition of the subject on the film plane, where front swings and tilts
 > will not.
 >
 > --
 > Regards,
 > Matt Clara
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.mattclara.com</font" target="_blank">www.mattclara.com</font</a>>
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Rear tilt focus?