My first LF camera. Excited! Can use some advice.

[koraks]

I wonder if raise and shift are only popular because they're easier than raising/moving the tripod?

There's often no realistic amount of rise you can make with your tripod to keep verticals parallel and still have the desired framing. It's common in architectural work; take the classic image of a church tower taken from the front from ground level. You'd have to raise your tripod to roughly halfway the height of the tower to get parallel vertical lines and still capture the entire thing.
In other words: a little bit of front rise generally does the same thing as actually moving the camera by a far larger distance.

 

[Steven Lee]

@koraks yes, that's actually my use case - and I use swing for that. I am trying to understand the purpose of raise and shift without affecting the focus plane.

 

[abruzzi]

@Roger Cole when do you use rise as opposed to mounting the camera lower/higher? I wonder if raise and shift are only popular because they're easier than raising/moving the tripod? Maybe I am not feeling the need because I do my precise framing even before I pull the camera out of the backpack? I have a smartphone app for finding the view and position of the camera, so when it's mounted I already have the framing I wanted.

where there are no straight lines in the photo, yeah, rise can just be an easy way to reframe without touching the tripod. But if there are straight lines, rise is is a way to avoid tilting the tripod and changing the perspective. Compared to raising the tripod, remember--the tripod rise works in the real world--1 foot of tripod is 1 foot more that you can see. But raising the front standard works at the reproduction ratio--1 inch of front rise could easily be 10 feet of real world change.

 

[koraks]

@koraks yes, that's actually my use case - and I use swing for that.

I don't see how swing would help maintaining parallel verticals in the case I described; I think we may have a terminology issue? I mean swing as also explained on e.g. this website (and many others): https://www.alexbond.com.au/understanding-large-format-camera-movements/

the purpose of raise and shift without affecting the focus plane.

Well, neither affect the focus plane, indeed - which is what makes them so convenient. Position camera back vertical, front as well, raise front stand up until framing is as desired.
Shift is used more rarely; it can be useful when trying to get yourself out of (or into) a mirror image for instance. Frankly I never use it.

 

[Steven Lee]

@koraks heh yeah I confused swing with tilt, and @abruzzi explained the difference between moving the camera and using raises/shifts. I guess my shooting style consisting of re-making my old MF images just naturally leads to not needing any movements, I'll start to push myself out of the comfort zone. Thanks.

 

[koraks]

Feel free to not use movements at all - they're optional
But rest assured you'll find yourself needing them pretty soon. And before you know it, it has become second nature!

 

[Steven Lee]

Or... I can re-shoot my old photos that could be improved by movements, like this one:

 

[koraks]

Nice shot. Yes, you could certainly do that one with front rise!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Movements -- especially swings and tilts -- accomplish something that can't be done with a fixed-geometry camera, even by cropping a wide angle image: they make the plane of sharp focus not parallel to the film plane.

If I shoot a landscape with my RB67 and include foreground, I'll have to compromise focus on either foreground or distant objects -- but if I frame the same shot (in the same aspect ratio!) with my Graphic View, I can use front tilt (or swing, in some cases) to put the plane of focus out in the world precisely where it's needed to keep the grass or reeds directly in front of the tripod and the mountain tops several miles away both in focus. And then I can use rise to include a main subject higher than my tripod position, without causing (for instance) tall trees to converge toward their tops, of if shooting down from a bridge, toward their bottoms. Combine the two, and I can control both perspective and focal plane all at once (providing there aren't objects that need to be in focus that are too far out of some plane that includes the other important objects -- then I have to just stop down more).

All of this, obviously, presupposes a lens with enough additional coverage beyond barely filling the corners of the frame -- but most normal or longer lenses don't have much problem here, and wider than normal lenses are usually subject to research to be sure they have the coverage you need (way, a 90 mm Angulon just covers 4x5, but a Super Angulon the same length has room for some movements).

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Steven,

You need to be aware of the different functions of tilts/swings vs. rise/shift.

The tilt/swing movements change the position of the plane of sharp focus in the scene as well as changing the plane of focus on the film.

Shifts and rise/fall don't make any changes to the planes of focus. They just move the (larger-than-film) image circle around so you are using a different part of it compared to when the lens was centered on the film.

The position of the back (film plane) relative to the subject is what determines if parallel lines in the subject are rendered parallel on the film. But, setting up your camera with the back parallel to, say, a building façade with the lens centered on the film often cuts off the top of the building. Using front rise keeps the back parallel to the building while giving you the framing you want. If you just point the camera up, the vertical parallels will converge. Using swings/tilts in this scenario just tweaks focus in and out in different areas of the image, it won't change the rendering of the parallels.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

 

[Steven Lee]

@Doremus Scudder yep this helps. I was just "complaining" about not needing it in practice, but that's just because I've been re-shooting my old landscapes where raise and shift weren't needed.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Steven,

You need to be aware of the different functions of tilts/swings vs. rise/shift.

The tilt/swing movements change the position of the plane of sharp focus in the scene as well as changing the plane of focus on the film.

Shifts and rise/fall don't make any changes to the planes of focus. They just move the (larger-than-film) image circle around so you are using a different part of it compared to when the lens was centered on the film.

The position of the back (film plane) relative to the subject is what determines if parallel lines in the subject are rendered parallel on the film. But, setting up your camera with the back parallel to, say, a building façade with the lens centered on the film often cuts off the top of the building. Using front rise keeps the back parallel to the building while giving you the framing you want. If you just point the camera up, the vertical parallels will converge. Using swings/tilts in this scenario just tweaks focus in and out in different areas of the image, it won't change the rendering of the parallels.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

How will tilts and swings and rises affect falloff on wide-angle lenses if you don;t use a center filter? Will the falloff change depend on the section of the picture?

 

[Donald Qualls]

How will tilts and swings and rises affect falloff on wide-angle lenses if you don;t use a center filter?

Usually lenses wide enough to need/want a center filter don't have much excess coverage anyway, so you're likely to encounter physical vignetting by the time you have enough swing or tilt for changes in light falloff (vs. no movements) to be significant.

 

[Roger Cole]

I should have added more detail - I end up using tilt for almost all landscapes, because I usually want a sharp foreground.

And I end up using rise because I want to minimize the falling over backwards perspective look when there are buildings or tall trees in a photo. It has nothing to do and is not remotely the same as raising or lowering the tripod, because that raises both the lens AND the film plane. Rise - front rise specifically - lets you keep the film and lens parallel while "raising" the framing, without tilting the camera up. If you are photographing, say, a 100 foot tall building in an urban scene then you'd literally need a 50 foot tall tripod to "just raise the tripod."

 

[Roger Cole]

There's often no realistic amount of rise you can make with your tripod to keep verticals parallel and still have the desired framing. It's common in architectural work; take the classic image of a church tower taken from the front from ground level. You'd have to raise your tripod to roughly halfway the height of the tower to get parallel vertical lines and still capture the entire thing.
In other words: a little bit of front rise generally does the same thing as actually moving the camera by a far larger distance.

Yeah, this.

 

[Roger Cole]

@Doremus Scudder yep this helps. I was just "complaining" about not needing it in practice, but that's just because I've been re-shooting my old landscapes where raise and shift weren't needed.

Welll...because you didn't USE them for your MF shots doesn't mean you didn't "need" them or, more accurately, couldn't have made good use of them to perhaps make a good shot even better.

When trying to do lanscapes or urban-scapes with buildings with my MF cameras I really miss movements (now that I'm used to having them) and if I want to shoot them in MF prefer a roll film back on my view camera to my RZ67. For portraits and such I prefer the RZ.

 

[MTGseattle]

Good to hear. I'm going to stay out of the "need for movements" topic, there's plenty of good stuff said in the above comments. the thing that still boggles my mind with large format is that you can have one eye out of focus in a portrait. i understand the principals involved, but since I was never a portrait shooter, I never had to think about it.
I didn't want to completely abandon 4x5, so I scooped up a really nice speed graphic last month. The 8x10 is due to some past carbon printing experience and the camera coming up for a really good deal. If I get the thing out and expose film with the 8x10 within the next calendar year, I'll be happy.

 

[GLS]

How will tilts and swings and rises affect falloff on wide-angle lenses if you don;t use a center filter? Will the falloff change depend on the section of the picture?

Yes, with any tilt or swing of the front standard the cos4 falloff will vary asymmetrically across the frame because you are moving the center of the projected image away from the middle of the frame.

In comparison equivalent movements of the rear standard keep the middle of the frame more or less fixed relative to the projected image, so the cos4 falloff remains virtually unchanged. For this reason, when using lenses with a limited image circle it can be advantageous to use rear tilts/swings as much as possible, bearing in mind that these will also alter image shape.

For the sake of a complete discussion, one should note that rear tilts/swings will still introduce exposure variance across the frame due to varying the distance the light travels to different parts of the frame, but in practice the affect this has is insignificant and can be disregarded.

 

[tih]

Lots of great information here. In case the OP, like me, enjoys good books about technical topics, I'd like to share my two favourite view camera volumes: "Using the view camera" by Steve Simmons, and "View camera technique" by Leslie Strobel. The former is a very readable introduction; the latter a very technical in-depth treatment of the topic.

I also like Harold Merklinger's books and articles, which can be downloaded from http://trenholm.org/hmmerk/

 

[Steven Lee]

@tih much appreciate the reading suggestions!!!

 

[Tom Taylor]

Well. I developed and scanned the negatives today. And here it is. My first 4x5 exposure:

View attachment 314517

It has everything:

• Incomplete development at the top due to insufficient amount of developer in a JOBO tank
• Scratches left by my repeated attempts at getting the sheet in and out of the holder
• Black dust specks! My first. A new and exiting side of dust to be introduced to!
• Fondest memories of inhaling my own t-shirt while trying to focus under it
• Surprisingly, complete absence of my fingerprints!

Couldn't be happier!

The only slightly disappointing thing is that the resolution jump is quite modest vs 6x7 or 6x6. In terms of lp/mm my Hasselblad glass outperforms this Sironar-S.

In my experience the defect in the sky area is not due to insufficient amount of developer but due to the developer not reaching that area on a regular basis independent of its volume. If you look carefully the width of the band is the same size as the slot on the reel. I purchased both the 2520 and 2509n new and for about a year developed 6 sheets of 4x5 at a time by hand inversion which requires 1500mL of developer. Then I started getting the same band in the sky as in your image. I switched to rotary processing, which requires only 270mL of chemistry, and the band disappeared. I theorized that over time the PhotoFlo that I was using in the tank built-up on the slot and prevented an even flow of chemistry across the film in that area. The takeaway from that was to remove the sheets from the reel and use a small tray or waterproof index file for the PhotoFlo treatment. Rotary processing forces the chemistry through that area.

Thomas

 

[Donald Qualls]

remove the sheets from the reel and use a small tray or waterproof index file for the PhotoFlo treatment.

I've applied wetting agent in the reels for decades -- a quick going over of the grooved side with an old toothbrush under running water does a fine job of eliminating or preventing surfactant buildup.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Tom Taylor yep, I have moved on to rotary since then and don't have this issue anymore.

 

[Roger Cole]

Interestingly enough I had just started getting uneven development with my 2509n reels several years back when I dropped photography for a while (divorce insanity followed by just being busy with other stuff and annoyed at trying to go back to working in a basement darkroom with a holding bath and no running water, about to be resolved.) I never did figure it out, but I was following the Jobo advice to use a pre-soak, supposedly offsetting the increase in contrast from continuous agitation. I've since read people claiming the pre-soak does not, in fact, do that, but it sure SEEMED to, though admittedly I didn't do what I should have and compared results with and without it. I just found that times I had used with inversion with 35mm and 120 with no pre-soak seemed to produce almost identical contrast with rotary AND one. I never had issues with my 35mm or 120.

Hopefully I'll be back into 4x5 in the coming year. If I can't sort it out with my 2509n and CPE2 I'll just get a CPA or CPP and Expert drums. I should probably plan on that anyway but might as well pick back up with what I already have.

I never saw the kinds of issues actually being discussed here, but I also never tried developing 4x5 by inversion. I DID use sheet film hangers and deep tanks before getting the Jobo though, and that seemed to work just fine, it just takes a lot of solution making one shot quite a bit more expensive.

 

[Tom Taylor]

The curious part is that the band only appears on one edge of the film – the sky portion – while the opposite edge of the film, which is also in a slot, shows no such defect. If you load the film correctly with the emulsion facing inwards on the reel, the sky portion is threaded through the reel's clear plastic section and the foreground section through the black plastic section (I'm right-handed.) This implies that there is a difference between the clear and blackened plastic that accounts for the observed defect.

Thomas