How often do you landscape photographers use tilt?

My questions are directed to the experienced large format landscape

photographers:

 

1. In about what percentage of your landscape photographs did you

use tilt or swing?

2. How do you determine, in looking at a three dimensional

landscape scene, when such movements will be helpful, i.e., allow

you to use a larger aperture?

3. Do you ever perform any kind of check to determine whether the

camera movement was actually beneficial?

 

I have been photographing with a large format camera for about 4

years now. I determine my aperture and focus point according to a

method described in an article by Paul Hansma (briefly, it involves

measuring the focus spread via a milimeter scale on the camera bed,

focusing in the middle of the spread and stopping down according to

a chart that relates focus spread to recommended aperture). I also

learned, from an article by Howard Bond, how to use the tilt

movement. Bond's method is very simple and precise, and I find it

easy to alter the plane of focus to include any two points.

 

What I have found very difficult, however, is determing where, in a

complex three-dimensional scene, the best plane of focus will lie.

After several exasperating early experiences, I have largely given

up using tilt, unless I am photographing a field or body of water.

Yet I have the nagging feeling that I am not fully exploiting the

advantages that the view camera offers the landscape photographer.

Hence, this question.

 

David Mark

I have only a year's experience, so there may be more expert answers. However, I would have to say that I almost always use front tilt, swing, or sometimes both. I only use back movements when it seems right to try to emphasize the scale of something in the foreground. I could see using neither, if I were photographing only distant landscapes, but most photographs run from foreground to background and require movements to bring everything into focus. I can usually see what is and isn't in focus on the groundglass with the loupe and therefore where the plane of focus belongs. This requires a systematic approach to inspecting all of the ground glass with the loupe. The exception where I sometimes do not use movements is with my 6x7 back and 101 mm Ektar. Just stopping down, and by no means all the way, seems to provide adequate depth of field in many cases.

Never use swing, almost never use tilt. But I don't mind stopping 'way, 'way down, and have no problem with OOF details if they are very CAREFULLY composed. Mostly I shoot with 195mm or 250mm lenses.

David, I am familiar with the methods you have been using for determining the plane of focus. However, I have no idea what percentage of my outdoor landscape photographs need to utilize tilt and/or swing, on either the front or the rear standard, in order to extend the plane of focus. It certainly is not a very large percentage. Jack Dykinga's book "Large Format Nature Photography" has some very informative descriptions and diagrams showing his technique for handling near-far compositions and focusing, using tilt and swing movements. He uses those movements quite frequently with his style of photographing outdoors.

1. I don't have any percentages, but I use tilt and swing fairly frequently.

 

2. I do it intuitively. If the things I want to be in focus can be put all in the same plane, like a relatively flat landscape, I use tilt. Swing I use less, but if there is a mountain range or a shoreline or stand of trees that runs at an oblique angle to the film plane, swing is useful.

 

3. I look at the groundglass with a loupe as I make the adjustments and see if I can get everything I want in focus. What other check can one make in the field? If I like the print, I was successful.

Frankly, IMHO, most LS photographers don't use tilt because they have no idea of how to use foreground, middle ground, and back ground and that is one of the chief reason, I submit, that the majority of land scape photography is so damned boring!

80% of the time, tilt about 20% swing. It does save at least one stop, for me at least. I found that I started using them more with 8x10 and 12x20 than when I shot only 4x5. With 4x5 I used it about 30%. Dont know why, it is just the way it has worked out for me.

David Goldfarb said what I would have. Tilt in nearly every shot (but I live in a big flat landscape.)

 

GH

I always use tilt. Depending on the subject matter as to whether I use front or rear tilt. I use front tilt if I have no foreground object that I wish to emphasize. If I have a foreground object that I wish to emphasize to exploit the "near-far" relationship then I will use rear tilt. The reason for using tilt is to limit the amount that I stop down. In spite of what is widely thought, stopped down does not necessarily equate with sharper. In fact defraction can actually diminish sharpness in a photograph. I never shoot below F32 in 4X5 or F45 in 8X10 for that very reason. Swing is another matter, if the scene calls for it, I use it. If not, I obviously don't.

Like my Salt Lake neighbor David Goldfarb, I also use movements very frequently.

<br>

I'm not sure if I'm overstating the obvious here but beyond any rules, the ground glass is the most versatile tool you have for judging the effects of movements and aperture.

<br>

I use a 4x loupe over the ground glass for practically every shot. In a nutshell, my process is as follows:

<ol>

<li>Start with the standards parallel and compose the image</li>

<li>Place loupe at top of ground glass and focus</li>

<li>Assuming you're going for a traditional near/far scene - place loupe at bottom of ground glass and tilt lens until it comes into focus</li>

<li>Repeat steps 2-3 until both ends are focused

<li>Pick the object farthest from the focus plane that you want to appear sharp and place loupe over it, then slowly close the aperture until it appears sharp. I usually set the aperture one stop smaller than that if possible to ensure it remains sharp when enlarged (remember it is not in the focus plane and by closing the aperture you are in essence reducing the circle of confusion, which will stretch when enlarged).</li>

<li>Close lens, meter, set shutter speed... etc.</li>

</ol>

 

Hope this helps,<br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild</a>

Oops... I'm thinking of a different David from Salt Lake. My apologies.

<br><br>

Guy

I've used a Horseman Technical Camera with 6 x 7 format on and off for over 30 years. Movements are limited and it is hard to see just what is happening on the small ground glass, so I tended to use tilts (and rarely swings) sparingly, but I did use them when I thought it would be helpful. Last July I got a Toho 4 x 5 view camera and I began to experiment with using tilts more systematically. I thought a lot about it and came to some conclusions, which can be found at

math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/dof_essay.pdf. But that is pretty technical and the material on tilts is far into the article, so I don't know how helpful you will find it.

 

There are few important rules one sees about tilts (and swings). First there is obviously not much point in using such movements if you can get everything adequately in focus simply by stopping down and relying on depth of field. Second, usually a very slight tilt can go a long way, so don't be misled by the pictures you sometimes see of contorted view cameras. Third, in much nature photography, the forground involves some significant vertical extension. Since the region of space which will be in adequate focus is a wedge starting near the camera, that means you won't generally be able to get all the foreground in focus with a tilt if there is significant vertical extension

 

I find that there are two useful ways to think of what you are doing when you use a tilt. First, you can fix a point, usually in the distance, which you want in focus and then tilt the lens to bring another point, usually in the foreground, in focus. (There are a variety of techniques for getting that right, one of which, due to Bob Wheeler, I describe in the above article, but you can use your favorite.) Once you have got that more or less the way you want it, your problem is to get everything else you want sufficiently in focus after you stop down. For things close to the camera, because of the aforementioned wedge, there isn't much you can do, but you can do something about more distant objects. The principle that controls this is the so called hinge line. (This has been popularized by Merklinger.) It is where the plane through the lens parallel to the film plane intersects the subject plane. As you move the rear standard, the exact subject plane pivots on the hinge line, and at any f-stop, the wedge of adequate focus pivots with it. The idea is to position that wedge so that everything you want to be sharp is adequately in focus.

 

After I understood the two steps of the process and the related geometry better, I found it much easier to apply tilts.

I use the same method you do in response to the same article I think. Photo Techniques Magazine about 4 or 5 years ago with a view camera on the cover right? Anyways I use combinations of both tilt and swing anytime it will make that focus spread shorter! If I've got near verticals balanced more to one side I intuitively think can I gain a little here with swing, and if I'm in the bed of the pickup looking out at a sea of sagebrush....well, that's a no brainer. Sometimes you walk up to that complex 3d scene you're talking about and look around and say nothing will work here except stopping down, and <i>SOMETIMES</i> I look for a couple of minutes and say sorry, no can do. Not with this rig anyway. I think you've probably got it right. There's sometimes when nothing is going to work very well but a 20mm on a Nikon.

David, there is often a tendency to use "all" available movements, simply because they are there! The "more is better" syndrome! I find that generally I use about 5 degrees of front tilt for landscapes where front to back "sharpness" is required, I also always shoot at f22 or smaller. I also occasionally use either front rise/fall or a combination with rear rise/fall. To date I have not found the need for any swing or front shift!!! However, there is bound to be an occasion when I am grateful for these movements on my camera! I think the key is to understand that not every shot needs movements applied to it. I agree that sometimes, especially with a complex scene of various heights within the composition, you will do as well to establish a perpendicular plane of focus and use a small aperture to obtain maximum "sharpness" throughout the fore, middle and back grounds. Learning to use a LF camera is a real voyage of discovery and at times VERY frustrating! Persevere and keep asking questions (especially on this forum - a gold mine of info!!)and the learning curve will not be so steep. The end result (the photo) is what's important - not how you took it! Good luck!!

I won't call myself experienced, but...

 

Landscapes around here tend to be steep - sometimes vertical. So I tend to use swing a lot, tilt a bit less, rise nearly always.

 

I tilt, shift and swing until everything I want to be sharo is sharp, then stop down. No measurements; I just look at the scene, guess at a plane, guess at what would bring it all into focus, then fine tune on the GG.

 

from Norway,

I tilt almost all the time, except if there is no foreground or

if it has a significant vertical extension. Rarely swing.

If you are familiar with Hansma's method and don't know

whether to tilt or not, measure the focus spread without

tilting, and then with a tilt and see which results in the

lower focus spread. This is the basis for a principled

approach described in <a href = "http://www.largeformatphotography.info/how-to-focus.html">How to focus the view camera</a>.

I use both tilt and swing fairly often to enhance depth of field and to exagerate foreground to background relationships. Probably the only time I will not use them is when there is a foreground object, such as a tree, going from top to bottom in my composition that part of would end up out of focus were I to utilize tilt.

If you are able I highly recommend you take Howard Bond's view camera work shop, I have taken several of his work shops. He is an excellent teacher.

I have this theory, passed down to me by Stephen Shore, that the eye naturally gravitates towards the point or plain of absolute focus. So I find it very difficult to pick a random point 1/3 of the way into the picture to focus on. Consequently I almost always use both front tilt and swing, not only to extend the depth of focus, but to further define the subject matter.

I tilt in virtually every landscape photograph, and swing in about 25%. The person who taught me view camera movements taught me to have whatever I want in focus in focus at the widest aperture (or least to make that the goal) so I am pretty careful about tilt and swings first, THEN stop down to f22 or whatever. I used to stop all the way down and actually noticed a pretty significant difference in sharpness, even in not-huge enlargements. My images are much sharper at f22 than at f64.

 

Jorge wondered why he uses movements less in 4x5 than in larger formats. I think it's because larger formats have considerably less DOF, so movements are much more critical. To make an 8x10 portrait at a reasonable aperture like f11, I have to tilt slightly to get the tip of the nose and the catchlights of the eyes in focus.

 

dgh

i have been doing large format photography about 3 1/2 years. for what it is worth, tilting and swinging the lf camera is important for the following reason not on the previous threads. if you stop way down, lens diffraction comes into play. by using tilts and swings to set up the plane of sharpness, it may be possible not to stop down so much and use a more optimal aperature for sharpness. this is the theory taught to me by howard bond. hope this helps.

Let me add that if you are using the focus spread method, you might find my article, referred to previously, enlightening. First, depending on the construction of your camera, it may suggest a method whereby you can enhance the scale you use to determine the spread. Second, it may tell you a method whereby you can skip the use of the table or perhaps make a table of your own appropriate for your needs. Finally, it tells you how to modify the method for closeups. Maybe all that was in the original article, but if not, you can find it in mine.

Forget the "rules" or "methods" for using tilts or swings. Just

reach around, while looking on the ground glass, and see what

happens when you use the movements. No rules. Do it

VISUALLY. This is a visual medium, isn't it? With proper use of

tilt in flat landscape you should be able to get everything in focus

wide open, even with long lens. Then, once you have that, you

stop down the lens. How far? At least a couple of stops further

than you think necessary. Diffraction is not an issue until around

f256. Our lenses only go to f90 or f128, stops we use whenever

necessary.

 

As an aside, I just learned (last night) that Edward Weston had

all his lens set to go way beyond f64.

 

Michael A. Smith

"Diffraction is not an issue until around

f256. Our lenses only go

to f90 or f128, stops we use whenever

necessary."

 

Now this is something I've always instinctively believed was the case (based on experience, [and there was a post on here with the math recently that seemed to say diffraction at any f stop we would normally use is almost undetectable?]), but there are those who seem to yell "diffraction" as soon as you slide past f22.

 

I've always generally preffered to distort the image using smaller f stops rather than tilting things. I always thought I'd be accused of heresy if I actually said so...

 

So, is this what you do as well?

 

I can see how the two approaches to acheive across the board focus - tilt and twist like a prezel until it's sharp, or close down the lens to a pinhole, would actually give a body of work a different feel.

I think that it is important to respond to the issue of defraction as it concerns stopping the lens down all the way. Michael and Edward Weston obviously did not enlarge their negatives and so defraction would not be as obvious in contact printing. That may be why Michael responded in the manner that he did. However for anyone who has experienced enlarging negatives, the effects of defraction are apparent when one takes the time to determine it for themselves. Defraction is certainly apparent long before the aperature mentioned by Michael. It becomes more of a consideration the larger the degree of enlargement. So I think that while we may be speaking of two different processes, the issue of defraction is demonstratable through emperical scientific process.

 

Regards,

Donald Miller