Help with an 8x10 shot. A bit long

I have been shooting a 4x5 with a 90 and 150mm lens for a while and found it pretty simple. Never had any real problems as it was a Sinar so set the focus zero the dial set the focus again read the tilt and apply it and refocus. Mostly simple landscapes.

Now I just decided to go for an Cambo 8x10 SC with a G-Claron 240mm lens and it made my tilt life more difficult.

I tried this shot, and I dont know if its even possible with out stopping way way down. Actually after scanning it I thought I might be better off shooting this shot with 4x5 and a shorter lens for more dof.

First off a LF theory question. Lets say I am using no tilt and stop down and attain a dof 10' in front of the focal point and 20 feet behind the focal point.

Now if I tilt the plane of focus to say 30 degrees is there still 10' on top and 20' below dof at the same F-stop ?? This has really got me confused.

Also another one. When I tilt my lens and refocus how do i know where the true focus point is. Since I sold my Sinar I have been using the far near ??? and refocus method. Not exactly hard science and probalby wrong but....

Okay back to my problem shot.

Just to make the explanation simple (I hope) I have a ramp, say about 15 feet wide. The bottom of the ramp is about 15 feet in front of me and the length of the ramp is about 30 feet and its maybe about 15 feet high. At the top of the ramp there is a bird bath about waste high so add another 3 feet to the top. At each side corner at the bottom of the ramp there is a tree. Each tree is maybe 12-15 feet high.

Now of course what i want is everything in focus from my toes to the top of the bird bath, so i would assume that my tilted plane of focus would need to go from just in front of my feet somewhere, through the top of the bird bath.

Now this plane of focus will be above the ramp and a little more flat than the ramp, but I should be able to get the entire ramp in focus by stopping down some since it is fairly close to parallel to the plane of focus ???

Does that sound right ??

I took the shot and it pretty much turned out okay, except for the trees tops on each side at the base of the ramp are blurry.

Originally i thought that at the those corners of the frame i may have just been at the blurry edge of the lens circle, but now after talking with a friend we are thinking the tops of the trees are blurry due to them being out of the area of sharp focus or i guess you could say too far above the tilted plane of focus at F16.

I took the shot at around F16 trying to keep the speed up a little since there was some wind so my question is.....

If I would have stopped down more like to F32 or F45 45 would it have pulled the tops of the trees into focus or is there another tilt method I needed to use. I only used front tilt and some fall for this shot.

I also think now that my tilted plane of focus may have been a bit too vertical, IE instead of being a slightly flatter slope than the ramp, it may have been a bit more steep than the ramp. Guess its time for a tilt calculator.

Here is a link to the photo. Its not really a ramp but you will get the idea. Its a big file full size so....... You can see the tree tops in the corner of the frame I am talking about. The pine needles in the top corners of the frame have sort of a hard OOF appearance if that makes any sense.

Reduced version
http://upload.pbase.com/tammons/image/49186509/large

Full size version
http://upload.pbase.com/tammons/image/49186509/original

Thanks

You do not have focus at the top and also front to back (most apparent on the left side). It would appear to me that, based on the image, you do not have the back vertically perpendicular to the plane of the image...additionally the left side softens front to rear more then the right side does. That would indicate that the camera location was not optimally postioned or you have some swing induced away from the primary plane of image. (It appears to not be perpendicular on the z axis).

For another thing, it is very rare that one shoots 8X10 with the amount of depth that this image requires at F16. I would review camera position, check that the back is perpendicular to primary plane of the image (this would be the plane of the trees) and stop the lens down to F45 to F90 if needed.

This is a good example of why shooting 8X10 is a different matter then 4X5.

I don't think you can tilt your way out of this one. The main issue is that when you've got some tall thing in the relatively near field that is more or less perpendicular to the plane of focus, tilts and swing really won't help, because you would need to have two planes of focus. The area that is within the DOF zone when you tilt/swing is a wedge, not a block, so the tops of those near trees won't be in focus if you tilt for the ramp. Maybe if you go for an angle that puts the plane of focus a little more vertical than the ramp so more of the DOF wedge will be up in the trees it could work, but you'll probably lose the foreground focus that way.

Also, f:16 is a fairly wide aperture for 8x10", even with a 240mm lens. It's not unusual to be at f:32 or 45 on 8x10". Inadequate DOF is almost always a more important concern than diffraction from small apertures, and unless you are printing very large indoor murals, I wouldn't even start worrying about diffraction with 8x10" until around f:64.

Either compose differently, or set the standards parallel and stop down.

Donald Miller said:

This is a good example of why shooting 8X10 is a different matter then 4X5.

Click to expand...

Boy you are telling me its different. Its very difficult IMO, but those huge slides carry the big wow factor.

This was from a group of test shots. I definately did not take enough time setting up and will spend more time on that with the next round.

I really set this camera up to shoot a few select locations, and not that often so I am trying to get used to it prior to that trip, because those locations are hard to get too, and I dont plan to go there often. Dont want to go totally unprepared.

Big difference between 4x5 and 8x10 is very true. I just never thought it would be that much more difficult.

David and Donald are both right. One, this composition has things in it that can't be gotten sharp with movements alone because they're not all in one plane, so stopping down is the only resort.

For example, I have a problem waterfall that when I'm below it, there's a rock shelf halfway into the comp with the waterfall visually immediately above the shelf. I can get the waterfall and "my toes" sharp, but not the shelf; I can get the shelf and my toes sharp but not the falls. I can't get everything sharp by movements alone.

You've just discovered the hard part about 8x10 and larger formats - you need to be thinking never less than f/32, and f/45 and f/64 are "better". You've also discovered why Ansel Adams shot a lot of pictures of rocks. They didn't move in the wind.

Steve

Troy,

Whatever composition you chose to photograph, take a moment to examine the composition in three dimensions. If the composition, height, width and depth resembles a cube then there is nothing except F stops that will help with depth of focus. If the composition takes on the shape of a rectangle then movements can help. Swing or tilt the lens plane " in the direction of the longest plane" likewise "swing or tilt the rear standard away from the longest plane" to help with focus.

Hope this helps in the future

Steve Sherman said:

Troy,

Whatever composition you chose to photograph, take a moment to examine the composition in three dimensions. If the composition, height, width and depth resembles a cube then there is nothing except F stops that will help with depth of focus. If the composition takes on the shape of a rectangle then movements can help. Swing or tilt the lens plane " in the direction of the longest plane" likewise "swing or tilt the rear standard away from the longest plane" to help with focus.

Hope this helps in the future

Click to expand...

steve I believe you have, quite possibly, given the best definition of movements and DOF.... EVER uttered.

seriously.

Ill throw something out there.... when moving from 4x5 to 8x10 (and larger) Ive never shot at an aperture larger than f32 (most commonly at F45+ or F64) for what its worth.

one more thing. in your original post you failed to mention any reference to the scheimpflug Principle. when I started using the concept it made perfect sense. really helped to make sense of it all.

scootermm said:

steve I believe you have, quite possibly, given the best definition of movements and DOF.... EVER uttered.

seriously.

Ill throw something out there.... when moving from 4x5 to 8x10 (and larger) Ive never shot at an aperture larger than f32 (most commonly at F45+ or F64) for what its worth.

one more thing. in your original post you failed to mention any reference to the scheimpflug Principle. when I started using the concept it made perfect sense. really helped to make sense of it all.

Click to expand...

I am starting LF and read all about the scheimpflug and hinge Principles got the math part right but still can't realy use it. What I wonder is how do people put it to practice. The problem I have with it is knowing the distances to key points on the focal plain. I can make good enough guestimations up to two or three meters but beyond that it I will make big mistakes. (Can't even imagine doing it on landscape with hidden valleys between me and the farthest ridge) So how do you do it?

Ruvy said:

I am starting LF and read all about the scheimpflug and hinge Principles got the math part right but still can't realy use it. ...

Click to expand...

The simplest way to do it is to forget about the math! Forget about the hinge rule too - it has no practical application outside the studio (and limited utility in the studio).

Return to the simple diagram of the Scheimpflug principle - three planes which intersect in a single line. Try to visualise the planes. It often helps to step aside and look at the camera from the side to get the film and lens planes lined up with the "scenery plane".

Merklinger is a brilliant man, and his hinge rule clearly shows it. But I consider his greatest accomplishments (1) the simple illustrations of DoF with tilts, and (2) the "reverse focus method". See both at http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/index.html if you haven't done so already.

BTW: I went through all the mathematics of the hinge rule to make sure I understood it. When I had done that, I decided I didn't need to know it since I never plan a shot in that great a detail - and I have Enough lenses of various focal lengths and configuration that doing the calculations for all of the relevant ones would take far longer than actually going out and trying it.

Ruvy said:

I am starting LF and read all about the scheimpflug and hinge Principles got the math part right but still can't realy use it. What I wonder is how do people put it to practice. The problem I have with it is knowing the distances to key points on the focal plane. I can make good enough guestimations up to two or three meters but beyond that it I will make big mistakes. (Can't even imagine doing it on landscape with hidden valleys between me and the farthest ridge) So how do you do it?

Click to expand...

Personally I say forget the math totally in a practical situation. If the image at the bottom of your focusing screen is sharp and you need to rack backwards to get the top sharp, you need to tilt the back backwards (or the front forwards if you have enough lens coverage). When you have done this a few times, you will be able to judge in advance how much tilt you need (for landscape work, it won't be more than a few degrees and it will be the same number of degrees every time for the same lens and tripod height). The hidden valleys are no problem - it will not be hard to get a depth of field of a few hundred feet at a distance of half a mile or more!

Thank you Ole and David. my question was more about this thread as it seems that the hinge rule may suggest a solution to Troy however it requires knowledge of distances which is a reason why I ma not using it. Instead I am doing something very similar to what you are suggesting. Thanks

Just as a side note--I do often shoot at wider than f:22 with 8x10", but usually that's for portraits and still lifes, where I'm intentionally using selective focus, so it's not as if one never uses wide apertures with 8x10" and larger, but it's a special technique for a specific effect.

Just a postscript, now that I have finally looked at your image. For this subject you cannot get away with tilt and a large aperture BUT if you can use tilt to get the plane of sharpness running up the tops of the cascades (i.e. the lips with the water running over them) THEN you need to stop down just to gain depth of field from the tops of the pots on either side down to the water level. I have no real indication of scale in your picture, but this distance looks like about 5 feet or so (by focusing on the cascade lips, you will have focused 1/3 into this required depth of 5 feet, which is the rule of thumb for gaining maximum effective depth). The camera back will need to be perpendicular so that the cascades look straight, but almost any lens should give enough covering power to allow use of front tilt in this way, which in turn will give you more options as to what shutter speed to use, since you ought to be able to get sufficient depth with front tilt at 22 to 32 instead of going all the way down to 45 or 64.

Plane of focus

I purposely didn't elude to the scheimpflug principle here as I thought it would just serve to confuse and worst yet start a discussion about all the the theory of a view camera.

As Ole indicated, much of the theory just isn't applied in the real world. Practically speaking when working in the field the amount of movement is not anywhere near as dramatic as you would see in camera manufacturers advertisements. Additionally, the shorter the lens the less the amount of tilt or swing, it's all relative. Lastly, when you are right on top of something and may actually be using a bellows extension factor the depth of focus moves away from the common 1/3 in front and 2/3 behind to a more 50 / 50. At 1 to 1 image size depth of focus is exactly 50 / 50

Aperature is your first control over DOF. Tilt or swing if you NEED to, but only after doing what you can with aperature. Try to stop down and preview the DOF, or if you have lots of money, shoot a polaroid.

If you're a technical person, you could measure (or focus on the nearest thing you want in focus, check the focal/image distance, then repeat for far focus) and mathematically figure out what DOF you will get with a giver aperature. There are spreadsheets, charts, and palm programs for this.

I would highly recommend reading Leslie D. Stroebel's View Camera Technique as this will give you a very good idea of the possible controls with the view camera, as well as how to use them.

Actually, I would do it the other way around. If the scene lends itself to adjustment of the focal plane, I would do that first and then stop down. This way, you can shoot at a wider, and usually more optimal aperture for the lens.

Sinar recommends figuring out swings and tilts before finding the optimal aperture for DOF required, if you use that system.

Great comments and thanks so far, but I still have a question on dof when tilting.

For example say with no tilt the focal plane carries with it a certain dof that is vertical. Say 30 feet total stopped down a bit or 15 feet to the front and 15 feet to the back of the vertical plane of focus.

What I want to know is does it mantain that 30 foot dof even when it is tilted. Like if you tilt the focal plane to 30 degrees do you still have 15 feet of dof perpendicular to the plane of focus on top of the plane and under.

Troy Ammons said:

Great comments and thanks so far, but I still have a question on dof when tilting.

For example say with no tilt the focal plane carries with it a certain dof that is vertical. Say 30 feet total stopped down a bit or 15 feet to the front and 15 feet to the back of the vertical plane of focus.

What I want to know is does it mantain that 30 foot dof even when it is tilted. Like if you tilt the focal plane to 30 degrees do you still have 15 feet of dof perpendicular to the plane of focus on top of the plane and under.

Click to expand...

Short answer is no...when tilt is utilized, you are laying the plane of the projected circle of light to a more horizontal orientation. Thus the plane of focus and depth of field will be in relation to this new axis of the circle.

Beyond that front and rear tilt each will have a different result on this.

David A. Goldfarb said:

Actually, I would do it the other way around. If the scene lends itself to adjustment of the focal plane, I would do that first and then stop down. This way, you can shoot at a wider, and usually more optimal aperture for the lens.

Sinar recommends figuring out swings and tilts before finding the optimal aperture for DOF required, if you use that system.

Click to expand...

I agree

Plane of focus

Troy,

Think of things this way, when you employ a tilt or shift to gain a focus advantage you take give it away in the opposite plane.

So much of focusing with a view camera depends on the exact set of circumstances which are unique to your composition at that time. This might sound crazy to you but it won't once you have used the camera in difficult situations a few times. Many times I have focused the camera on an exact point in mid air, much by the seat of the pants, but that is what experience teaches you. Just go make photogrpahs.

Steve

Troy Ammons said:

Great comments and thanks so far, but I still have a question on dof when tilting.

For example say with no tilt the focal plane carries with it a certain dof that is vertical. Say 30 feet total stopped down a bit or 15 feet to the front and 15 feet to the back of the vertical plane of focus.

What I want to know is does it mantain that 30 foot dof even when it is tilted. Like if you tilt the focal plane to 30 degrees do you still have 15 feet of dof perpendicular to the plane of focus on top of the plane and under.

Click to expand...

No. The depth of field will be wedge-shaped, with the thinner end of the wedge nearer to you. A wedge that will only get you a few inches on the ground in front of you can get you a whole mountain range miles away.

See this page for a good visual explantaion:

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/HMbooks5.html

Ignore the math (as much as you can) and look at what the pictures are showing you. It should help a lot.

Best of luck to you. This stuff will become more natural as you use it.

Edit: One more resource I should have linked: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/VCFaDOF2.pdf

Steve Sherman said:

Many times I have focused the camera on an exact point in mid air, much by the seat of the pants, but that is what experience teaches you. Just go make photogrpahs.

Steve

Click to expand...

Well I had gotten to that point last year with my Sinar 4x5 and the 90 and 150 lenses. In normal shooting, like a typical landscape I could set it up, set the tilt by instinct and i would be very very close without even doing anything.

Then along comes my 8x10 with longer lenses, shorter dof and this one very difficult shot. I think one problem I was having is it was so hot, I was really dying under the darkcloth. I am thumbs up for my 4x5 binoc viewer. It is by far the best accessory I have ever used on LF. I just wish I could get one on my 8x10, but then again it would make a huge camera even bigger.

You are right, I just need to get out and shoot some more. I think just need to dedicate a box of B+W 8x10 to learning this camera. At any rate I will figure it out sooner or later.

Thanks