It's been established that my context of "moving the rear standard" meant moving the film plane "off" parallel axis with the lens. I have cordially and without name calling cleared that issue up with Ralph thru PM's.
I called you no name. I said that your "warning" was unnecessary to anyone but the people who I called a name.
Further, my initial comments were not drop dead rules, rather a word of caution to a new comer to the LF world, one who might not have the incredible resources you must have to secure a lens with covering power @ 45 degrees front tilt while still staying within the given image circle.
I don't think I have incredible resources. I just have the experience that I shared, using lenses that are designed for movement, and that cover when approaching 45 degrees tilt. This was used as an extreme example, and this was clear in my post.
Lastly, had you not used your time to amass 4000+ posts, your practical photographing experiences might have aided in a scenario where a 7x17 camera with no front movements in vertical orientation, only rear swing and tilt with camera approx. 2 feet off the ground and a tall building in the background could be in sharp focus @ nearly wide open while still preventing any vertical lines from converging in the slightest. But, I thought one couldn't move the rear standard and still preserve perspective, sorry, I did not know the rear standard was off limits
How??? by tipping the camera forward ( lens standard ) and then pulling the rear standard back to a vertical and parallel orientation to the building.
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.
It is not rear tilt/swing just because you physically tilt/swing the rear of the camera. It is front tilt/swing you have when using this trick. 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 (which is what you must do if you intend to end up with the original composition you envisioned after using this trick), 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. The only thing that matters as far as clipping the composition with the edge of the image circle is where the lens is in relation to where the film is.
So, what does this mean for your original suggestion to the OP? It means that your suggestion that rear tilts and swings are a preferable alternative to front ones is only applicable in pictures in which changing the shape of objects in the image is acceptable. Hardly a general-enough situation to give this as general advice when working with large format.
Looking back to my Blind Bozo days I might have reasoned that because I have only posted 10 % of 4000+ that I may have had 90 % more time to actually make photographs, however, that seems impractical to me given the wisdom of my years.
I really get a kick out of "forum photographers" who have to exert their absolute expertise with the written word rather than making and sharing photographs. So here again, the very best thing about these forums is also the worst, so much erroneous information is given out to the unsuspecting and uninformed new comer.
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.
