is large format a solution to this problem?

[matt_borengasser]

Hi folks,

First, please don't hound me for not going out and buying a large format

book. :) I would love to, but I live in Asia and don't have a credit card. So

I don't shop online. I have browsed the net a lot and find a lot of technical

info about cameras, but it seems mostly to be written for people who already

have them and like to share advanced techniques.

 

I currently am shooting 6x7, and am thinking about going large format for a

number of reasons. Most recently, I have noticed a problem that I am having

with focusing and want to know the following:

 

Will the bellows of a large format camera increase depth of field?

 

I have seen examples of how bellows adjustment can put the foreground or the

background out of focus, and so I'm wondering if it could do the opposite of

putting the background and forground in focus, while keeping the mid-ground in

focus.

 

I shoot a lot of wide angle work whether it be architecture or landscape, and

have been repeatedly frustrated by extreme foreground being out of focus. An

example is the image that I have attached, but I see this problem in a number

of wideangle situations.

 

Thanks for the input.

matt

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

The real advantage of large format is movements. You can control the plane of focus and deal with convergence. You'll get less DOF, so plan on using a tripod and stopping down.

[nikos peri]

In case you haven't already seen this, it's a very good starting place;<p>

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/

 

DOF will be less with a larger format as Robert said, but with movements, you can choose

where to place the plane of focus, unlike fixed lens/film plane cameras. Search for the

Scheimpflug rule for your question on getting the plane of focus (as opposed to DOF) where

you get a receding landscape in focus.

[ronald_moravec1]

The bellows may or may not allow more to get in focus. The lens image plane is a plane just as with your 6x7, except with bellows the plane can chnged. Partial list:

 

high background to low forground- low background and high forground will go out of focus if you do this.

 

close left to far right- far left and close right will go out of focus is you do this.

 

raising the lens. This will get more of vertical objects in the picture at the expense of having less foreground visable.

 

You can also tip the to get high foreground and low background, close right and far left, shift up, down, right, left.

 

Final answer is the plane of focus can be moved to include close and far objects IF they are all in the same plane.

 

A tripod is necessary to preform these movements and simply to take pictures with a large format camera without a viewfinder. Those with wiewfinders have less than complete sets of lens movements and adjustments available, limited lens selection, limited bellows length (can`t use long focal length lenses) and are of old designs. Linhoff Master Technique would be a partial exception being the most versatile viewfinder 4x5 at the cost of being very expensive and very heavy.

 

You will find the darkcloth hot in summer, blown by wind to obstruct your view of ground glass, and the camera difficult if not impossible to operate in cold weather. In short, you need to be very dedicated. A 6x7 is a far easier to use as it is not much different than 35mm.

 

There is also a weight and bulk penalty and problems of getting film processed if you do not do it yourself.

[bruce_watson1]

There are two main reasons to go LF. First is the larger film size. Second is the decoupling of the film plane from the lens plane. This decoupling allows for lens movements relative to the film plane (what you call "bellows adjustments"). The result is control over the plane of focus, and the ability to move the plane of focus relative to the film plane.

 

Depth of field is a function of size of the image. The larger your film size, the smaller your depth of field for a given aperture. But since you have movements available, you can control the plane of focus and therefore have less need of depth of field.

 

For your example architecture shot, you can exactly line up the plane of focus with the plane of the building. With a lens that has enough image circle to cover the film with movements, you'll see your building in excellent focus from top to bottom. Further, you can align the film plane with the plane of the building thus eliminating convergence (keystoning). This lets you control somewhat the feeling of perspective that people get when looking at the print.

 

That said, there are limits. Mostly these limits are imposed by the image circle of the lens in question and the bellows of the camera in question. IOW, movements are limited. It may be impossible to photograph your example scene from the original location (very close to the base) and include all you show in perfect focus and without distortion, just because you run out of coverage and/or bellows.

[david_schwartz6]

Agree with everything above. One other point on DOF -- large format camera lenses often stop down way lower than medium or small format, enhancing depth of field -- of course, at miniscule apertures like f64 or f128, you need to worry about refraction effects, but still, it is quite easy to be at f45 or so and get magnificent images with great depth of field. Given this, I personally have never felt the need to use the Schleimpflug effect.

[david_schwartz6]

One problem with stopping down like this, however, is that it becomes very difficult to see the image on the ground glass -- depth of field preview is particularly difficult in low light situations.

[mark f]

One other thing is that it is much easier to see what is in focus sinply because you have a big screen, a loupe to look at it, and you'll tend to take your time more. I sometimes had out of focus pictures with SLRs, but never (so far) have had an inadvertantly out of focus picture.

[jtk]

A view camera with lots of swing/tilt etc will allow you to increase foreground/background focus, assuming you really do need the larger format. If you don't need the detail resolution of a larger format your 6X7 lens (the 50 or whatever you showed us) will usually have more depth when stopped down.

 

If you like your extreme perspective you'll have a hard time getting it with large format. I did use a 58 Grandagon 5.6 on a custom 4X5 camera (solid body, no bellows) and got that kind of perspective, but there were no movements...the lens has to cover a lot more than the format in order to have useful movements.

 

Don't buy a "field camera" or "press camera" if you're serious about architectural photography...they don't offer nearly enough movement.

 

Larger format does make ground glass focus easier, even with slow lenses. It takes patience. I have a little 6X9 Century Graphic and it's almost impossible to use its movements effectively due to the small screen, even with relatively fast lenses.

[sergio maretz]

Hi, first make sure you can buy the right film for LF. In China and Singapore they are selling sinar and alpa, it is likely you can, but in Vietnam and Thailand, and of course Cambodia, Lao, Mongolia and Myanmar, you may not find the LF sheets and the laboratories to process them.

Accessories are difficult to find and equipment is much more expensive than Europe ou US. Japan may be a good place to go shopping LF. You may find a saler through a website and pay by bank transfer, hence no need for a credit card.

 

Good luck

[Troll]

Unless you have some problem with your MF equipment, I see no reason to switch to LF, which is by comparison a PITA to use.

[jtk]

"Unless you have some problem with your MF equipment, I see no reason to switch to LF, which is by comparison a PITA to use."

 

I agree that there are advantages to MF, but LF is absolutely as easy if one puts a little effort into learning. Zone System is easier with sheet film and there's less spotting, just as MF requires less spotting than 35. As well, sheet film may be less vulnurable to handling damage in processing (depends on how the film's processed).

[nikos peri]

"Unless you have some problem with your MF equipment, I see no reason to switch to LF, which is by comparison a PITA to use."<p>

That's to say that having the advantages of swings, tilt, rise to control perspective and plane of focus can be thrown out the window as a PITA?!?! Of course, why would you want an immensely larger negative either, or the benefit low enlargement factors (if any!).<p>

The problem the OP has is that he wants foreground/background landscape to be in the plane of focus; having tilt is exactly what the doctor ordered.

[big toys are better]

FWIW-- the Mamiya 6x7 SLRs (at least the RB67 series) had movement in the front standard to provide some additional DOF with all of the lenses though most useful with wide-angles. Specialized "Tilt&Shift" lenses for both MF and 35mm are available to do much more that the RB67, making their cameras somewhat comparable to view cameras with their movements. View cameras, especially rail systems, greatly increase these capabilities by allowing movements at both the front and rear standard, as well as a broader selection of lenses with which to control perspective. But the cost of this is a slow deliberative process, definitely not what you would have using Canon's wide-angle, normal and short telephoto T/S offerings for its 35mm SLRs.

[jtk]

"...the cost of this is a slow deliberative process, definitely not what you would have using Canon's wide-angle, normal and short telephoto T/S offerings for its 35mm SLRs."

 

I loved my T/S Canon, but the "slow deliberate process" of view cameras with sheet film is not a cost, it's a benefit.