I called you no name. I said that your "warning" was unnecessary to anyone but the people who I called a name.
I don't think I have incredible resources. I just have the experience that I shared, using lenses that are designed for lots of movement.
I think you were hoping for your technique to be some mind-blowing and clever revelation to me that would zingingly prove me wrong. However, this is the oldest trick in the book (and a great - I would say "essential" one) for squeezing the effects of front movements from a camera that does not have them. I have even explained it before on this Website for those with limited cameras. I do it often with my Kodak No. 2 5x7, which, like your big camera, has no front tilt or swing, but has rear tilts and swings. The net effect is not one of rear tilt, but one of front tilt. There is no way to have net rear tilt or swing without changing the shape of the image.
However, it is not rear tilt/swing just because you physically tilt/swing the rear of the camera. It is front tilt/swing. It is the effect on the image that matters. You are arriving at front tilt/swing by using a tilting tripod head combined with a subsequent leveling of the rear of the camera. The rear moves, but it the manipulation employed is front tilt. Just look at the camera when it is set up this way, and imagine the rail or bed is not there (because the bed or rail doesn't matter when describing net camera movements anyhow; only the relation of the lens standard to the film standard, the latter of which is the point of reference). The rear is level, and the front is tilted. The rear of the camera is physically tilted, but this is front tilt, not rear.
It is worth mentioning that if you use this trick to get front tilt from a camera without a physically-tilting front, and then raise or lower the front in order to get the composition back to what you intended, you end up being just as close to the edge of the image circle as you would have been when using a camera with a tilting front...so, what does this mean for your original suggestion to the OP?
Additionally, your use of the term "preserving perspective" is incorrect, and all too common when describing camera movements, which is particularly bad because you mis-paraphrased me as making the statement, when I did not. (What I said is: "If one does not wish to distort the shape of the image, then front swings and tilts are the only way to place/orient the place of focus, drawbacks be damned.") Perspective is not a thing that you can control with camera movements on the camera itself. It is simply where the camera is in relation to where what it is shooting is; it's "view" of the scene. Thus, the only way to change perspective is to move the camera's location entirely...and the only way to preserve it is to not do so. Therefore, it is a given that perspective is always preserved from the time you set up the tripod in its final location and orient the bed or rail in its final location, until you finish taking the picture and pack everything up. Camera movement change the image's shape, not perspective. The only times you worry about perspective are when you are trying to decide where to set up the tripod, and when you are trying to decide where to point the camera once it is on the tripod. Once you have done these two things, you can twist the camera into a pretzel, and the perspective will still be unchanged.
Being correct or incorrect has nothing to do with number of posts made or number of photographs digitized for sharing on the Web (something I am definitely not into doing, and with good reasons). Yet someone who is incorrect will almost always point to these things as if they matter.
You are also incorrect in calling me a "forum photographer" (a name directed pointedly at me, and meant to be disparaging, unlike my comment, which was directed at no one in particular and meant to be lighthearted). The facts of my life prove that I am not. Just because forum activity is a fun time for me does not mean that I do not photograph (and a lot, at that!), and it does not mean that the forum is my life. I lightheartedly called the people who would actually need your warning that name, not you. I.e. people who can't see that they have gone over the edge of the image circle when composing on the G.G. Additionally, "blind Bozos" is a rather mild and goofy term, meaning someone who makes an obvious and silly mistake, and makes a Bozo out of them self by doing so. It was my attempt to jokingly say "WYSIWYG." However, I guess it touched a nerve with you, having been misunderstood by you.
Last edited by a moderator:
