composing LF on a ball head tripod.

[manjo]

I am a newbie and using LF for the 1st time. I have a tripod (gitzo)

with a manfotto ball head, I mount my LF toyo 4x5 on the ball head.

Its sturdy and have no problems holding its weight. I can balance the

LF using the built in (on) bubbles easily.

 

Question is, can I tilt the whole camera inorder to compose my shots ?

or should the bubble be always level and use movements (raise & fall)

to all the time? Since its on a ball head its easy to move the camera

around and adjust for perspective with the back plane. Is this methord

incorrect ?

[lonoveracker]

Manoj,

 

Of course one of the big advantages of LF is perspective control. When you have scenes with tall trees, building, etc., in most cases you want the rear standard vertical, or at least parallel to your subject to eliminate the vertical lines "bending" towards the center; a common and unattractive perspective with the smaller format like 35mm.

 

Having said that, it doesn't mean you always have the camera back exactly vertical. In fact, even in nature/landscape work you can get away with trees and other objects with some perspective loss, because most of the time you can't notice in nature. With many man-made things like buildings, bridges, structures, etc. it becomes more important.

 

I wanted to reply here because I also use a ball head and the problem is not whether or not you can tilt the camera, but with a ball head, if you want to adjust for horizontal, you can't do it independantly of the vertical. In other words, once you unlock the ball, you're in situation where you have to control every movement; up/down, back/forth, side/side, framing, etc. You then have to hold the camera steady in one hand and hope you can tighten the ball down with the other hand without moving the camera again. Let's say the horizon is tilted every so slightly and you want to correct it. Release the ball head and dangit, now the vertical is off.

 

For those reasons, I'm considering going to a 3-way pan/tilt head. I've always thought they were big and bulky, but they certainly solve the above problem and you can easily change just one dimension at a time.

 

Lon

[ben conover]

Hi, I'm a LF nooby 2.

 

Seems like you could use the ball head for the purposes you mentioned. However, for fine movements you might want something with gears etc.

 

Cheers.

[bruce_watson1]

Like most things, it depends on what you want. When the film stage is plumb and level, straight lines from tall trees and buildings look straight as they should. If you tilt the whole camera, including the film stage, you induce some distortion where straight lines from the tall trees and buildings start to curve. In particular, if you tilt the camera up, you get what's sometimes called "keystoning" where trees on both sides bend towards the middle, like an arch made of stone bends towards it's keystone.

 

If, however, the scene that you are interested in doesn't have much in the way of straight lines, or the distortion doesn't matter to you, then by all means point the camera where you want.

[brian_ellis19]

I use a ball head for all formats other than 4x5. I think you'll find it difficult to make fine adjustments in one direction only with a ball head that has a relatively heavy LF camera on it. I find a pan/tilt head or a geared head much easier to use with 4x5. But to answer your question, you tilt the whole camera if that's what has to be done for the composition you want and then use movements as necessary. If the camera doesn't need to be tilted to accomplish what you want it can be kept level. In other words, you do what's easiest and that will allow you to make the photograph you want to make, there is no "rule" that the bubble should always be level.

[wieslaw1]

I have a sturdy Monoball, Swiss made, but do not use it any more

with my Linhof. It is too heavy. I cannot take more than 10 kg

(18-20 lbs) of weight on a 12 hours trip while I am hiking and

climbing in the mountains. So I just level the camera by extening

tripod legs and use the rise/fall adjustments.

[leonard_evens]

As others have said, it all depends on what you want to accomplish. For most normal photography, I find it best to have the camera level, but certainly there are occasions where it seems best to tilt it.

 

It should also be noted that the crucial thing is the oreintation of the back. For example, suppose you are taking a picture of the vertical facade of a building and you don't want the verticals to converge. Then you need to have the back parallel to the building facade. You can then use a front rise or rear fall (or both) to get the top of the building in the frame. Usually, the back will be close to vertical if the camera is level and the back is in its zeroed or default position. But sometimes the back is slighted tilted in that position even when the camera is level. I always check the orientation of the back using a torpedo level and don't specifically worry about whther or not the camera is exactly level.

[Ed_Ingold]

Manoj,

 

You can tilt the camera to compose the shot, then tilt the back so that it is parallel to the subject (if you wish). It is the relationship of the back to the subject that determines the perspective. Tilting the whole camera, then tilting the lens board and back to be vertical is the same effect as using a rising or falling motion.