Being new to cameras with movements (though understanding the concepts), I was wondering about the series of steps that take place in your head when you're first standing there behind your tripod, to determine which and how much movement to apply. With the goal to have a repeatable pattern that could be done in a more quickly and more organized way. I'm not asking "what does this do" so much as the applied practical application side. Thanks for your thoughts.
-
Welcome to Photrio!Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.Click here to sign up
Can you describe your brain's "algorithm" for determining what movements to use for an image?
-
A
- Thread starter loccdor
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Omega 6.5" inch Condenser for 4x5 format, D series, D2, DII etc
- Started by Jon Shiu
-
For Sale 5 GE 15w frosted white Safelight Bulbs
- Started by Jon Shiu
-
For Sale Omega D parts
- Started by mgb74
-
For Sale Zone VI 5x7 Enlarger & Accessories $1500 obo
- Started by oficinouno
Forum statistics
Ian C
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 1,327
- Format
- Large Format
In order to use movements efficiently, it’s important to use a lens that projects a generously sized image circle so that the movements don’t cut off part of the image.
Read about Scheimpflug Geometry for which we use horizontal swing or vertical tilt.
See the paragraph: Changing the plane of focus.
The basic setup is shown in Figure 2 in the following Wikipedia article. While the math is theoretically interesting, it can be ignored for practical purposes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle
It’s simple to set up. Once you’ve done it a few times, it becomes intuitive and can be done quickly.
As for what indicates which movement to use, it’s the result of looking at the scene and noticing something amiss. For example, if you must angle the lens axis upward to include the top of a tall building or tall trees, you might notice an annoying perspective. It might be remedied by leaving the lens axis as close to horizontal as practical and raising the front standard upward (vertical shift) to capture the higher part of the scene to minimize perspective distortion. Alternatively, you could select a longer lens and photograph from a greater distance if practical.
A subject, such as the photo of the model train in the Wikipedia article, in which the main area of interest lies in a plane that is not parallel to the image plane, indicates the use of Scheimpflug geometry (horizontal lens board swing in this case) to give the line of train cars good definition at a moderate aperture.
Read about Scheimpflug Geometry for which we use horizontal swing or vertical tilt.
See the paragraph: Changing the plane of focus.
The basic setup is shown in Figure 2 in the following Wikipedia article. While the math is theoretically interesting, it can be ignored for practical purposes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle
It’s simple to set up. Once you’ve done it a few times, it becomes intuitive and can be done quickly.
As for what indicates which movement to use, it’s the result of looking at the scene and noticing something amiss. For example, if you must angle the lens axis upward to include the top of a tall building or tall trees, you might notice an annoying perspective. It might be remedied by leaving the lens axis as close to horizontal as practical and raising the front standard upward (vertical shift) to capture the higher part of the scene to minimize perspective distortion. Alternatively, you could select a longer lens and photograph from a greater distance if practical.
A subject, such as the photo of the model train in the Wikipedia article, in which the main area of interest lies in a plane that is not parallel to the image plane, indicates the use of Scheimpflug geometry (horizontal lens board swing in this case) to give the line of train cars good definition at a moderate aperture.
Last edited:
Tel
Allowing Ads
I'm not nearly as scientific about this as some and I don't do architectural photography or landscapes, but rather prefer closeup work. Mostly I ask myself what I want to see in sharp focus in the frame and make the adjustments to do that. More than half the time I don't use the tilt or swing adjustments at all, especially if I'm shooting a slow exposure with a small aperture and deep DoF. I usually spend much more time adjusting the tripod than playing with planes of focus.
Alan Edward Klein
Allowing Ads
When would you shift rather than turn the camera towards the subject?
IMO, the most important thing to remember about camera movements is that very small adjustments typically have a large impact. Architectural photography can demand extreme movements, while landscape/general scenic photography not so much.
I shoot landscapes and general outdoor scenes and my camera movements are generally limited to tilt and rise. When trying to maximize DOF in a landscape, for example, if I have tall verticals in the scene (trees, cactus, etc) I rely on proper setting of focus and smaller apertures to pull as much DOF as I can muster. Personally, I find it difficult to get tall verticals correctly focused if I employ any amount of tilt. If I don't have tall verticals in the scene, then tilt is truly your friend.
I shoot landscapes and general outdoor scenes and my camera movements are generally limited to tilt and rise. When trying to maximize DOF in a landscape, for example, if I have tall verticals in the scene (trees, cactus, etc) I rely on proper setting of focus and smaller apertures to pull as much DOF as I can muster. Personally, I find it difficult to get tall verticals correctly focused if I employ any amount of tilt. If I don't have tall verticals in the scene, then tilt is truly your friend.
Before thinking about camera movements, you first have to think about getting the camera in the best place for the perspective you want -- and then picking a lens for the coverage you want. Putting thought into that will make camera movement easier. Failing to do that will lead you into making unnecessary camera adjustment, especially in rise/fall & shift.
Alex Benjamin
Allowing Ads
No fixed process, depends on the context.
Easiest is general countryside landscape photography. I'll start with rise (or sometimes fall) if needed to get the framing I want. Then it's front tilt to figure out my plane of sharp focus, unless there are many tall, straight objects (trees, poles,etc.) at different distances, in which case I just stop down the lens aperture. I might do a tiny bit of back tilt to emphasize the foreground a little, but really very little, as I don't like this technique becomes obvious in the photograph (this, of course, is a matter of taste and style, not of process per se).
Urban landscape is also simple. Generally, it'll be just rise to get the right framing, and also to eliminate converging line in tall buildings. No other movements are usually necessary, but I might use a little back swing if, for example, I want to sligtly modify the perspective of the side of a building.
Things get more complicated if I need to have the camera at an angle — for example, when point it downwards. First thing in that case is to figure out where I want the film plane (i.e., its relation to the subject), generally through tilt. After comes the front tilt (or swing, in some cases) movement to figure out focus. This situation, to me, is hardest, and longest, to figure out. Happens, for example, if you want to photograph stuff lying on a table from a specific angle and simply using fall doesn't cut it.
Portrait movements are more complicated to systematize, as the totally depend on style, i.e., on how far you're willing to go and experiment in terms of the focusing possibilities that front and back tilt allow. Same can be said for still life.
Easiest is general countryside landscape photography. I'll start with rise (or sometimes fall) if needed to get the framing I want. Then it's front tilt to figure out my plane of sharp focus, unless there are many tall, straight objects (trees, poles,etc.) at different distances, in which case I just stop down the lens aperture. I might do a tiny bit of back tilt to emphasize the foreground a little, but really very little, as I don't like this technique becomes obvious in the photograph (this, of course, is a matter of taste and style, not of process per se).
Urban landscape is also simple. Generally, it'll be just rise to get the right framing, and also to eliminate converging line in tall buildings. No other movements are usually necessary, but I might use a little back swing if, for example, I want to sligtly modify the perspective of the side of a building.
Things get more complicated if I need to have the camera at an angle — for example, when point it downwards. First thing in that case is to figure out where I want the film plane (i.e., its relation to the subject), generally through tilt. After comes the front tilt (or swing, in some cases) movement to figure out focus. This situation, to me, is hardest, and longest, to figure out. Happens, for example, if you want to photograph stuff lying on a table from a specific angle and simply using fall doesn't cut it.
Portrait movements are more complicated to systematize, as the totally depend on style, i.e., on how far you're willing to go and experiment in terms of the focusing possibilities that front and back tilt allow. Same can be said for still life.
cowanw
Allowing Ads
Supposing your Avatar had a mirror staight on instead of a painting, and supposing the person taking the picture did not want to be in the mirror- set up directly in front of you and shift to include the mirror
We have to define "The Camera" because the front and rear are independent and do different things. Turning "The Camera" would move both the front and rear standard and would have dramatic consequences to the focal plane. If the lens moves in space, the viewpoint (perspective) changes also. Again, just to emphasize the dramatic effects of turning the whole camera.
Moving the front standard alone changes perspective, and is the only way to change perspective. That is, moving the lens in 3d space changes the viewpoint and the ONLY way to change the viewpoint is to move the lens in 3d space.
Moving the back does not change perspective. The relationship of objects is held constant. No change in viewpoint.
Of course back swings change the relative size of objects but their relation to each other is held constant. Viewpoint, perspective, etc don't change. One can't 'see around' another object by any movement of the back.
You know that example in any discussion of movements that tilting the camera up to get the top of the skyscraper causes the image of the skyscraper to taper/get smaller towards the top?
The exact same thing happens with turning the tripod left or right. A landscape example: here in New Mexico we have a lot of very old wood beam fences out in the middle of nowhere. Suppose there is a no trespassing sign on the fence with bullet holes (another very common occurrence.) For whatever reason, that sign is directly in front of me. If I point the camera directly at the sign, the fence will be equal height across the whole image which is kind of a boring composition. Instead I point the camera away from the sign so the fence has a taper, and then use rear shift to get the sign back into frame. I then adjust front swing so the plane of focus follows the fence.
This could probably also be done with rear swing, but since that affects focus which would have to be adjusted with front swing, I think the way above is the quickest path to the effect I want. (I don’t use rear tilt/swing often since it’s like changing two variables at once.
My approach is twofold.
First is perspective management. That includes choosing the camera position and lens focal length first, as mentioned above. Then the creative decision: How do I want the camera back positioned relative to the subject? (Remember, the camera-back-to-subject relationship determines relative sizes and perspective in the image, so that's my first decision.)
Scenario 1: To keep parallel lines parallel in the image, the camera back must be parallel to them as well. So, for architectural work where I want everything plumb and level, that's the ticket: set up plumb and level with the back positioned parallel to the lines/planes I want rendered parallel in the image. That only leaves front tilts and swings left for positioning the plane of sharp focus (PoSF). Framing then gets done with rise/fall and shift (or the equivalent - sometimes I have to use "point-and-swing-parallel).
Scenario 2: I want to use the camera back position to manage relative sizes and perspectives. This would include using back tilt to make foreground objects appear larger, intentionally making parallel lines converge, etc. One can set up the camera plumb and level (I often do) and then use back tilts and swings to position it relative to the subject. After that is done, then front movements take care of the positioning of the PoSF if needed. Sometimes you can feed two birds with one scone: e.g., use back tilt to make the foreground more present and get the PoSF positioned where you want it too.
Secondly, and after I've got the camera back where I want it relative to the subject, I examine the scene to find the optimum position for the PoSF. I try to visualize the PoSF and the DoF, realizing that when tilts or swings are used, the result is a tilted PoSF with a wedge of DoF around it. The narrow part of the wedge is closest to the camera position and the DoF grows with distance. I look for "deal breakers," e.g., tall objects in the foreground that make tilts impractical, etc. I try to find a place for the PoSF that gets everything into focus at a smaller f-stop than I would need with the camera in zero position.
Then, when I have an idea where I want the PoSF, I choose two focus points that I want the PoSF to intersect, one near and one far. I then tilt (or swing) to get these two points sharp. Then I go about determining the f-stop, but that's another discussion.
If I find I want to position the PoSF obliquely, e.g., near and low bottom left and high and far top right, then I'll have to use both tilts and swings. For this, I find a set three focus points that define the PoSF and use two to set the tilts and two (one being different from the first set) to set the swing. Iterations are usually necessary to fine tune.
Really, though, it's the visualization of where the PoSF should go in the scene that guides me. With a bit of practice, it gets easier to visualize this, which really cuts down on making mistakes applying a wrong movement.
Hope this helps,
Doremus
First is perspective management. That includes choosing the camera position and lens focal length first, as mentioned above. Then the creative decision: How do I want the camera back positioned relative to the subject? (Remember, the camera-back-to-subject relationship determines relative sizes and perspective in the image, so that's my first decision.)
Scenario 1: To keep parallel lines parallel in the image, the camera back must be parallel to them as well. So, for architectural work where I want everything plumb and level, that's the ticket: set up plumb and level with the back positioned parallel to the lines/planes I want rendered parallel in the image. That only leaves front tilts and swings left for positioning the plane of sharp focus (PoSF). Framing then gets done with rise/fall and shift (or the equivalent - sometimes I have to use "point-and-swing-parallel).
Scenario 2: I want to use the camera back position to manage relative sizes and perspectives. This would include using back tilt to make foreground objects appear larger, intentionally making parallel lines converge, etc. One can set up the camera plumb and level (I often do) and then use back tilts and swings to position it relative to the subject. After that is done, then front movements take care of the positioning of the PoSF if needed. Sometimes you can feed two birds with one scone: e.g., use back tilt to make the foreground more present and get the PoSF positioned where you want it too.
Secondly, and after I've got the camera back where I want it relative to the subject, I examine the scene to find the optimum position for the PoSF. I try to visualize the PoSF and the DoF, realizing that when tilts or swings are used, the result is a tilted PoSF with a wedge of DoF around it. The narrow part of the wedge is closest to the camera position and the DoF grows with distance. I look for "deal breakers," e.g., tall objects in the foreground that make tilts impractical, etc. I try to find a place for the PoSF that gets everything into focus at a smaller f-stop than I would need with the camera in zero position.
Then, when I have an idea where I want the PoSF, I choose two focus points that I want the PoSF to intersect, one near and one far. I then tilt (or swing) to get these two points sharp. Then I go about determining the f-stop, but that's another discussion.
If I find I want to position the PoSF obliquely, e.g., near and low bottom left and high and far top right, then I'll have to use both tilts and swings. For this, I find a set three focus points that define the PoSF and use two to set the tilts and two (one being different from the first set) to set the swing. Iterations are usually necessary to fine tune.
Really, though, it's the visualization of where the PoSF should go in the scene that guides me. With a bit of practice, it gets easier to visualize this, which really cuts down on making mistakes applying a wrong movement.
Hope this helps,
Doremus
Vaughn
Allowing Ads
The landscape under the redwoods is quite chaotic and very demanding of one’s use of depth of field and camera movements. Exposures can vary widely just a few steps away and one works around the breath of breezes thru the trees and along the creeks.
Even before setting the camera up, a meter reading of the scene is helpful as it will give me the possible f/stop and exposure time combos — important info for creating the image.
Then, with the camera leveled and zeroed out, I start creating the image on the ground glass. I like to say I use all the camera movements for every image…just that most of them are used at zero. But I do like to use back tilt sometimes to get trees leaning the way I’d like them to.
I work primarily on the GG, placing the plane of focus about a third into the scene, making small amount of movements if needed. I check my progress by closing the aperture slowly down while concentrating on the most out of focus areas on both sides of the plane of focus. In theory, as I reduce the aperture, if both areas come info focus on the GG at the same time, then I have placed everything optimally.
In this way, I can check near-far focus placement as well as the effects of any combination of movements used…then make corrections as needed. If I am stretching the DoF as far it can go, I can bias the less-sharp areas at/near infinity so the near areas are sharper, if desired. (the areas coming into focus first as I reduce the aperture will be sharper than those areas coming into focus later.
Even before setting the camera up, a meter reading of the scene is helpful as it will give me the possible f/stop and exposure time combos — important info for creating the image.
Then, with the camera leveled and zeroed out, I start creating the image on the ground glass. I like to say I use all the camera movements for every image…just that most of them are used at zero. But I do like to use back tilt sometimes to get trees leaning the way I’d like them to.
I work primarily on the GG, placing the plane of focus about a third into the scene, making small amount of movements if needed. I check my progress by closing the aperture slowly down while concentrating on the most out of focus areas on both sides of the plane of focus. In theory, as I reduce the aperture, if both areas come info focus on the GG at the same time, then I have placed everything optimally.
In this way, I can check near-far focus placement as well as the effects of any combination of movements used…then make corrections as needed. If I am stretching the DoF as far it can go, I can bias the less-sharp areas at/near infinity so the near areas are sharper, if desired. (the areas coming into focus first as I reduce the aperture will be sharper than those areas coming into focus later.
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |