I have a question about my medium format Topcon Horseman 970 6x9cm camera (see avatar), for the large format users if that's OK? I hope the cross-over post will be allowed.
It only has backward tilt on the front standard and I wondered under what circumstances this would be best used, as I have read that forward tilt is mostly used to increase depth of field?
It also has limited forward and back tilt and swing on the rear standard. Perhaps this can compensate for the loss of forward tilt on the front?
Any advice is welcome and apologies if I've crossed a line.
The backward tilt on the front standard likely matches a detent on the rear standard and allows you to point the camera down or use the bed drop, then tilt one or both standards back to the pre-selected detents in order to get an effective front fall (which the camera likely doesn't have). To get effective front forward tilt, you tilt the whole camera forward and then tilt the back backward.
Best,
Doremus
No , you understood it just fine . Regardless of if you want to call it "plane of focus" or "depth of field" , if you focus with the lens board and film parallel at any given aperture you have a specific DOF . The same holds true in any format .
By applying a little forward tilt it brings the foreground into focus as well as the distance , without the need to stop the lens down excessively .
wrong.
A tilting lens controls Scheimpflug, that is the plane of sharp focus. Tilting the film plane controls the shape of the image.
If your tilt lens has enough tilt to be parallel to the film after you tilt the film plane then you would have some control over image shape. But not near as much control as with a view camera with full movements.
Thanks for that. As a long time photographer, mainly shooting journalism and music, this is my first foray into cameras with front and back movements, other than a Linhof Technica 5x4 monorail I bought in 1982, but didn't keep it for long. So, while not using the term 'plane of focus' much in my career, I am aware that 'near and far' sharpness can be created by camera movements. I called this 'depth of field' and while it may not have been purist enough for Bob S, I knew what I meant.
What bothers me, and it was the main point of my OP, is that I don't have forward tilt on the Horseman 970. So, am I stuck with differential focus and use of the aperture to create both shallow and broad DoF, as I would be with 'ordinary' cameras?
Tilting the lens forward decreases the depth of field.Very wrong!!! Tilting the front, or the back, has no effect on depth of field. ...
No, tilting the lens will only control the plane of SHARP FOCUS. NOT THE DEPTH OF FIELD. THAT IS CONTROLLED BY YOUR APERTURE.O.K .
So what your saying is that if I focus the scene with the lens board and film parallel , I will have a certain amount of the scene in acceptable focus depending on aperture / lens / format etc .
And this is fixed and can only be increased by stopping the lens down further to increase DOF ?
Whereas when I apply a bit of front tilt , the image I'm now looking has has got more of the foreground in focus and still good focus to the distance .
This is a technique I've used many times to increase what is in focus in the image , from front to back without resorting to stopping the lens down excessively .
A.K.A , D.O.F , from mountain scenes where I want the grass or rocks in front of me in focus as well as the mountains , to shots of waterfalls with the rocks in the pool in front of me also in focus .
Or am I and many other people imaging this ?
In books I've read on focussing a view camera many years ago , plus personal experience , and since the invention of the internet , I'm sure the same can also be found .
This is how it's shown to get what you want in focus from front to back , i.e , to increase the DOF .
"If your tilt lens has enough tilt to be parallel to the film after you tilt the film plane " ?
If lens and film are parallel then you've not applied "tilt" be it forward or backward tilt in the context we're discussing .
Only because the ground gets in the way!Tilting the lens forward decreases the depth of field.
No, tilting the lens will only control the plane of SHARP FOCUS. NOT THE DEPTH OF FIELD. THAT IS CONTROLLED BY YOUR APERTURE.
Yes, that means that you have changed the plane of sharp focus from left to right to front to back. But objects to the left and right will only be apparently sharp depending on how far you’ve stopped down your lens.O.K , so when I don't tilt the lens if I'm using a 150mm lens , on a 5x4 camera focussed at a distance of approx 47 feet , then the amount of the scene in good focus is from 23.4 feet to infinity .
See here ; http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
We agree on that ? open the lens more up gives less DoF , stop it down increases Dof .
We agree on that ?
O.K , so now I apply a bit of forward tilt to the lens , WITHOUT moving the rest of the camera , and re-check focus .
The boulders or grass about 10 feet in front of me is now in good focus , and so are the mountains in the distance .
Do we agree on that ?
Sorry if I am confused and if it has been covered and is clear, but if your Horseman 970 had a bed that drops, front rise, and front backward tilt, then using all three in combination will give you front forward tilt.What bothers me, and it was the main point of my OP, is that I don't have forward tilt on the Horseman 970. So, am I stuck with differential focus and use of the aperture to create both shallow and broad DoF, as I would be with 'ordinary' cameras?
A lot of cross purpose disinformation from one or two participants.
While tilts and swings can't change the DOF of a lens which is dependant on the focal length and the aperture used, it's also a factor of the distance the lens is focussed, So by changing the plane of focus the DOF is then also changed across the negative.
So yes Tilts and Swings can be used to increase the effective depth of focus by changing the plane of focus often allowing a more optimal lens aperture to be used rather than stopping a lens down to a point where it's diffraction limited and losing sharpness. It's what's on the negative that matters not being pedantic over the terms used.
Ian
Tilting the lens
Just let me add a consideration, while the drawing is totally useful to explain the effect, it may be said that it contains a conceptual error, to determine the intersection where the focus plane passes the film plane has to be used:
Yes, that means that you have changed the plane of sharp focus from left to right to front to back. But objects to the left and right will only be apparently sharp depending on how far you’ve stopped down your lens.
Look up Scheimpflug on Google. That’s what your tilt does.
Scheimpflug was an Austrian surveyor who dropped his transit and displaced an element in it. He discovered if you tilt the front or-and the lens or the image plane so that a line from the subject plane through the lens and image plane intersect on a common plane you get a tremendous plane of sharp focus.
.
Emphasis added .A lot of cross purpose disinformation from one or two participants.
While tilts and swings can't change the DOF of a lens which is dependant on the focal length and the aperture used, it's also a factor of the distance the lens is focussed, So by changing the plane of focus the DOF is then also changed across the negative.
So yes Tilts and Swings can be used to increase the effective depth of focus by changing the plane of focus often allowing a more optimal lens aperture to be used rather than stopping a lens down to a point where it's diffraction limited and losing sharpness. It's what's on the negative that matters not being pedantic over the terms used.
Ian
+1
View attachment 254286
(Here the film plane is at right and scene is at left, depicted reversed from the example)
This is not exactly extending DOF but a tilt-swing of the focus plane in the scene, in practice it may work like a DOF extension. Because (for a certain aperture) it was not possible to have both distant subjects in focus if not stopping the lens a lot more.
.
The only thing that might make that diagram more helpful would be a rock in the foreground and a mountain in the background .
Ignoring that mistake, the diagram is actually quite correct -
Which method is better and what are the difference in results.?No. The angle of the camera to the subject controls perspective.
there are 2 ways of using a view camera.
1 is by direct displacements. To use the building example. Place the camera where you want it, raise the front standard and lowere the back standard, with the camera level, and you have the building in the picture with no keystoning. Providing your camera has adequate rise fall and your lens has enough coverage.
2 is by indirect displacements. Tilt the camera till yo have the top of the building in the frame, tilt your back till it is parallel to the building, tilt your lens so it is parallel to the back.
Both give you identical results.
But neither changes the perspective.
That only changes with camera position.
Ok, that simplified rule may be help, and it is important to know where the hinge line is...
But IMO learning the right concepts it's always a good thing: as you also use the rear tilt combined it makes a lot of sense having learned that intersection is in the image plane, first it remembers you that the rear effect is in the counter sense than the front effect. When learning it is a good exercise to look the camera from one side and locating the intersection. This is also quite useful when shooting "macro".
A way to get practice with movements is to place the plane of focus in an arbitrari position, making it pass throught 3 arbitrary positions in the scene, at different height, distance and H/V angles, and then placing the image circle in the right place to perhaps also correct the verticals.
Funny, 40+ years of using a view camera and I have never once took into consideration where the intersection of the planes was -- mostly because the intersection is never part of my image.
Everything is on the GG...if you see it, it is there. Silly me, I know.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?