Backward Tilt only on Front Standard - What is is Good For?

[Doremus Scudder]

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

 

[Stephen Power]

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

Very helpful, thank you very much. Stephen

 

[Stephen Power]

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 .

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?

 

[Stephen Power]

I've posted my first image from this camera in the Medium format thread. Can't find a way to upload to the gallery. DoF looks pretty good.

 

[neilt3]

wrong.

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 .

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.

"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 .

 

[neilt3]

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?

As long as you can position the camera to have it's front standard tilted forward while still having the film plane vertical , then you'll achieve more front to back focus , or DoF .
Does the front standard have "rise" or the back "fall" so you can keep the lens and film centred still ?
My first 5x4 camera was a Graflex Crown Graphic which had very little movements . Just a fit of back tilt and rise on the front standard .
The front standard was reversed to give that bit of forward tilt .
The back can't be rotated so tilt is only available in landscape orientation , so I've had to shoot landscape and crop portrait at times .

A friend bought me a Chroma 5x4 camera for Christmas which is much more versatile having more movements than you can shake a stick at !
Likewise my FKD 13x18 camera is more of a studio camera , so I've recently got a Kodak Specialist Model 2 Camera .
It's actually a plate camera , but it's happy using 7x5 DDS , likewise it has more than enough movements .
I just need to finish making an adapter to allow it to use the same lens boards as the Chroma .

 

[ic-racer]

Very wrong!!! Tilting the front, or the back, has no effect on depth of field. ...

Tilting the lens forward decreases the depth of field.

 

[Bob S]

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 .

No, tilting the lens will only control the plane of SHARP FOCUS. NOT THE DEPTH OF FIELD. THAT IS CONTROLLED BY YOUR APERTURE.

 

[John Koehrer]

One thing you may be surprised at is how little actual movement is really used with movements. In the image above it
notes 3.3 or 5.6 degrees to change the focus quite a bit.

 

[MattKing]

Tilting the lens forward decreases the depth of field.

Only because the ground gets in the way!
Or more usefully, only because one cannot make use of all of the depth of field that would be available if one was imaging below the surface of the ground.

 

[neilt3]

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 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 ?

 

[Bob S]

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 ?

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.

Imagine that you are standing on a stage in a theater and without tilting you focus on a row of seats but the seats in front and behind that row are less sharp until you stop the lens down to extend the dof so closer and further rows become APPARENTLY sharp.
Now tilt your lens forward and your plane of sharp focus will now run from a seat in the front to a seat behind it in a sharp row. But seats to the sides of that sharp row of front to back seats will be out of focus until you stop your lens down far enough to make those seats apparently sharp due to depth of field.

 

[Vaughn]

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?

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.

Level the camera,
drop the bed,
use front backwards tilt to make front standard straight up,
use front rise to center lens to camera back,
compose,
tilt the front standard forward to any amount you wish.

 

[wiltw]

Some photographers, who thought outside the conventional use box, have used back tilt of front standard to shoot with very thin DOF that can appear as a 'miniature scene'...real items look to be toys in such usage.

 

[tih]

To the original poster: there's been a lot of conflicting opinion here, much of it caused by people talking past each other. Since you're familiar with the theory as it applies to non-adjustable cameras, let me suggest a couple of books that will teach you what changes when you adjust your large format camera.

A very nice introduction, without too much hard theory, is Steve Simmons: "Using the View Camera".
If you want all the information, in exquisite detail, get Leslie Strobel: "View Camera Technique".

Both are excellent books, and highly recommended.

If you're really brave, Harold Merklinger wrote some interesting material, and it's available on the net. His articles for View Camera magazine are at http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/VCFaDOF1.pdf and http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/VCFaDOF2.pdf, and his book, which goes into intricate detail, including the underlying mathematics, is at http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/FVC161.pdf (and there's more stuff, too, with a table of contents at http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/).

 

[Ian Grant]

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

 

[138S]

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

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 (corrected, not an error, it shows the hinge line), to determine the intersection where the focus plane passes the film plane has to be used:

(Here the film plane is at right and scene is at left, depicted reversed from the example)

____


Of course when tilting the front or the back we may place in focus different subjects that are far one from the other becasue we can make the focus plane pass by their positions.

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.

It has to be noted that it can also work to "decrease DOF", as we may tilt-swing the focus plane to place an element farther from the focus plane to have it more blurred and perhaps less distracting, or to make OOF discs from bright points larger !
____

In fact, "this" Rollei SL 66 manual treats the lens tilt as a DOF extension capability:



http://mjaatvedt.no/SL66_Manual_revised.pdf

In that case the front tilt movement (a body deformation) is exactly equivalent to a Rear Tilt, because the image circle center remains exactly centered in the middle of the film frame.

 

[tih]

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:

Yeah, whoever drew that drew it with way too much lens tilt, ignoring the fact that those three planes have to intersect, as per Scheimpflug.

Ignoring that mistake, the diagram is actually quite correct - it's just using a different way of working out the solution. Specifically, it uses what Harold Merklinger (see my previous post, above) calls the "hinge rule", which he prefers to the mathematically equivalent Scheimpflug rule.

There is information missing, of course - the diagram itself doesn't explain where the numbers in it come from. One source of that information is http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/HMbooks5.html.

 

[neilt3]

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.

At last !
Like I said in my first reply to you it's just semantics .
Tilt the lens the bring the foreground and background into focus and you've effectively increased the DoF , shooting at your usual aperture that you would landscapes ( where your using this technique ) , typically f/16 or f/22 everything else takes care of itself .
That's all the O.P was after understanding and how to achieve it with only back movements .

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.

.

Yes , I'm well aware of it without resorting to Google .
You stated that previous responses were "Very wrong" when it was said by adding front tilt it effectively increased the Dof , which is easily defined by bringing more foreground into focus while still keeping the background in focus .
People were answering the O.P without trying to complicate things by showing how clever we all are .

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

Emphasis added .

The O.P just wanted to know what adding a bit of tilt does , and if he can use a rear only movement .
Initially it was summed up quite simply only to be told "That's very wrong" .
As you said , it's what's on the negative that counts !

+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 .

 

[ic-racer]

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/FVC161.pdf
http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf

 

[138S]

The only thing that might make that diagram more helpful would be a rock in the foreground and a mountain in the background .

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 the Scheinflug 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".

That graph shows the hinge line

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.

Ignoring that mistake, the diagram is actually quite correct -

Well, in fact the diagram is totally correct because it shows the hinge line:



But IMO first we have to explain how the focus plane is determined, this is the last figure in the (very good) doc pointed by IC Racer:


http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/FVC161.pdf


First we determine the focus plane considering the film plane (and this includes rear tilt-swing), later we may consider the hinge line where the DOF wedge opens.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Which method is better and what are the difference in results.?

 

[neilt3]

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.

I fully agree with you that it's important to fully learn the how's , what's and why's to get the best out of things .
To help understand all that before learning the technical stuff in detail , it's often helpful to have a simplified explanation as a basic concept .
Even when it's not "as simple " as that , it lets you get your head around things easier and makes the how , what and why's make sense , and what doing certain things do to have an effect on the final image .

 

[Vaughn]

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.

 

[138S]

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.

Of course, after 40+ years playing movements this is like riding in bicycle !!! (and I'm not speaking about the south island!)

But to learn it may be useful to know where one wants the intersection placed to know how the standards have to be moved, approximately.

For example this Hypar shot has a swing to follow the car's front, the intersection is a vertical axis placed at the right of the camera and in the same plane than the car's front, it is where the film plane and the lens board plane have to intersect, telling the photographer what kind of movements he has to adjust.

Of course there are others ways to practice... this is the way I was teached.



https://www.flickr.com/photos/55873497@N04/46436030655/in/album-72157700628585755/