Perspective correction beyond the rise limits...

[Ariston]

I want to photgraph something (architectural) that is higher than my camera's (and lens`s) rise can handle. Is there a way to point the camera up at the subject, and then correct the perspective... say with tilt on the rear standard?

I can try it myself tomorrow when it is day, but was thinking about potential photos now and wondered about this...

I am still an amateur with movements.

 

[Dan Fromm]

You're asking about indirect movements. You need a book on LF. The most recommended ones are:

Simmons, Steve. 2015. Using the View Camera: A Creative Guide to Large Format
Photography. Echo Point Books & Media. 146 pp. ISBN 1626540772, 978-
1626540774. There are many editions. Highly recommended on the US large format
forum.

Stone, Jim. 2003. A User’s Guide to the View Camera. Pearson. 166 pp. ISBN
0130981168, 978-0130981165. There are many editions. Highly recommended on the
French large format forum even though it is in English.

Stroebel, Leslie D. 1999. View Camera Technique. Focal Press. 376 pp. ISBN
0240803450, 9780240803456. There are many editions. Highly recommended on the
US large format forum.

All are available used at reasonable prices from on-line bookstores.

 

[ic-racer]

Deleted, thought this was an analog thread.

 

[voceumana]

Instead of the rising front, you can tilt the back to be vertical and the front to be vertical. The limit of such movements are the flexibility of the bellows and the image circle of the lens. If the lens limits your rising front movement--i.e., you run out of image circle--you will have the same issue with the tilting back and front.

The back tilt corrects the perspective, the front tilt corrects focus. The combination of front and back tilts produces the same results as a rising front, but usually with greater range available.

 

[MattKing]

Don't forget the controls available in the darkroom as well.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I want to photgraph something (architectural) that is higher than my camera's (and lens`s) rise can handle. Is there a way to point the camera up at the subject, and then correct the perspective... say with tilt on the rear standard?

Sure, just aim the camera up and then tilt the front and rear standards forward so they are vertical.

The danger is running out of image circle. Some ground glasses have the corners cut out and you can peer through the lower corners and make sure you can see light coming through the lens (if the corners aren't cut out you can remove the back and do the same thing).

If you run out of image circle then then you will have to resort to using the most rise you can accomplish and then aiming the camera up. You then correct the residual distortion in the enlarger by tilting the easel. Ideally you would be using an enlarger that lets you tilt the negative stage so things stay in focus on the easel, but that is pretty rare these days. Without a tilting negative stage you will need to stop the lens down all the way to get as much DOF as possible so that everything stays in focus on the easel. Focus on a point about 1/3 the way down from the top of tilt.

 

[Ariston]

If you run out of image circle then then you will have to resort to using the most rise you can accomplish and then aiming the camera up. You then correct the residual distortion in the enlarger by tilting the easel.

This seems like the best solution. Unfortunately, my enlarger caps out at a 6x9 negative size. I may have to climb on top of my SUV and hope that I can trip the shutter before I fall.

Thank you for the education, everyone.

 

[vickersdc]

Don't forget the controls available in the darkroom as well.

That was my first thought! If your enlarger allows it, you can use tilt on it to achieve the effect you require.

 

[grain elevator]

Disregard if you find it inappropriate, but I think if you're aiming up so strongly, you may want to think about leaving the converging verticals. When we look up, at some point we do become aware of them, and when they're corrected, it can seem unnatural. Especially if there are strong visual clues to the fact that the camera is looking up, such as visible bottoms of balconies. Maybe more so today as people aren't used to looking at perspective corrected photos any more.
Anyway we rarely think of correcting converging horizontals, why is that? Just photographic convention IMHO, which of course has its justification in that we often can't move up enough to avaid converging verticals, whereas we can usually move horizontally to avoid converging horizontals. Yet we often chose not to do it. So avoid being driven by the convention.

 

[Ariston]

Disregard if you find it inappropriate, but I think if you're aiming up so strongly, you may want to think about leaving the converging verticals. When we look up, at some point we do become aware of them, and when they're corrected, it can seem unnatural. Especially if there are strong visual clues to the fact that the camera is looking up, such as visible bottoms of balconies. Maybe more so today as people aren't used to looking at perspective corrected photos any more.
Anyway we rarely think of correcting converging horizontals, why is that? Just photographic convention IMHO, which of course has its justification in that we often can't move up enough to avaid converging verticals, whereas we can usually move horizontally to avoid converging horizontals. Yet we often chose not to do it. So avoid being driven by the convention.

I agree with you in many instances. I actually rarely do anything architectural, so usually I use movements for focus. In this case, I am trying to get a deadpan straight-on look with a feature on a brick building. What's frustrating is that it is only on about the third floor - just out of reach of my rise.

I have had this image in my mind for a long time. I need to get it done before the subject disappears, which has happened to me before.

 

[bdial]

If you're shooting 4x5 and scanning, you can do similar perspective adjustments in PS.
Another alternative, albeit more expensive, might be a shorter focal length lens, or else, make the picture from farther away, presuming that's feasible.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Nicholas has the best answer if your lens has the image circle. I use this trick all the time, calling it the "point-and-tilt" method of extending front rise.

Another option is mounting your lensboard upside-down if (and only if) your lens is mounted off-center on your lensboard and your camera will allow the lensboard to be so mounted without light leaks. I used this trick on a Horseman Woodman camera all the time with my WF Ektar 135mm.

And, if you run out of coverage and/or rise, you can still get the shot by using a wider lens and then cropping away the undesired foreground when printing. As long as you don't change camera position, the perspective will remain the same. I use this trick too in extreme situations.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Ariston]

If you're shooting 4x5 and scanning, you can do similar perspective adjustments in PS.
Another alternative, albeit more expensive, might be a shorter focal length lens, or else, make the picture from farther away, presuming that's feasible.

Thank you for this. I had considered that, as well. I use Aftershot, but I am sure it has something similar.

I had also considered something more distant, which is a good suggestion. But I do not have long enough lenses for 4x5 or medium format, and I don't want to use 35mm.

Nicholas has the best answer if your lens has the image circle. I use this trick all the time, calling it the "point-and-tilt" method of extending front rise.

Another option is mounting your lensboard upside-down if (and only if) your lens is mounted off-center on your lensboard and your camera will allow the lensboard to be so mounted without light leaks. I used this trick on a Horseman Woodman camera all the time with my WF Ektar 135mm.

And, if you run out of coverage and/or rise, you can still get the shot by using a wider lens and then cropping away the undesired foreground when printing. As long as you don't change camera position, the perspective will remain the same. I use this trick too in extreme situations.

Best,

Doremus

I am not sure my lens has the circle or my camera the flexibility. The spot is quite a ways off. I need to just bite the bullet and go back out there again...

 

[Bob S]

If you're shooting 4x5 and scanning, you can do similar perspective adjustments in PS.
Another alternative, albeit more expensive, might be a shorter focal length lens, or else, make the picture from farther away, presuming that's feasible.

Read this:

https://www.rodenstock-photo.com/Archiv/Perspective Control.pdf

 

[MattKing]

I use Aftershot, but I am sure it has something similar.

Corel's Aftershot Pro 3 does not.
Corel's PaintShop Pro 2020 does.

 

[Ariston]

Corel's Aftersot Pro 3 does not.
Corel's Paintshop Pro does.

I knew you would know the answer... well, that stinks.

 

[MattKing]

Paintshop Pro is relatively cheap, and complements Aftershot Pro well.

 

[Ariston]

I may look into it. I hate computers, so I try not to even use Aftershot if I can avoid it. Since I am getting my darkroom set up, I can finally avoid most scanning, which I consider to be a punishment fit for politicians and murderers.

 

[ic-racer]

Read this:

https://www.rodenstock-photo.com/Archiv/Perspective Control.pdf

Spoiled the thread.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If your lens has enough coverage, but you don't have enough front standard rise along with enough rear fall, then simply angle the bed of the camera itself upward and re-adjust both standards back to vertical. Simple. Just expressing it in my own words, even though it's all been mentioned already, including the additional option of an offset-hole lensboard.

In the darkroom, there are basic perspective correction tricks when printing, though it's always better to do it in camera as much as possible.

Digitally? - just strongly tilt your viewing screen and hope you don't get vertigo.

 

[Ariston]

Spoiled the thread.

The Rodenstock is beyond my means, but I am accepting donations.

If your lens has enough coverage, but you don't have enough front standard rise along with enough rear fall, then simply angle the bed of the camera itself upward and re-adjust both standards back to vertical. Simple. Just expressing it in my own words, even though it's all be mentioned already, including the additional option of an offset-hole lensboard.

In the darkroom, there are basic perspective correction tricks when printing, though it's always better to do it in camera as much as possible.

I like the way you have described the movements very much. I don't know if I have enough image circle, so I need to check. If I remember correctly, I think I once ran out of circle even with the limited rise I have. Also, on my cheap and old Wista field camera, I am unsure about the available tilt.

Everyone has been very helpful; I just need to make the trip and see if my equipment (and brain) are up to the challenge. It does not seem too complicated thanks to the help here. If I can find a way to get it in camera that would be great; because I am not yet very savvy in the darkroom.

 

[voceumana]

Let me state something that should be obvious but often is not: large format photographers are the frequently the most reluctant to resort to cropping an image, yet they have the negative area that can support it without loss of image quality.

Go for a longer shot with whatever focal length you have and then crop the image during printing. It is a practical approach. It is also an approach that give a natural feeling perspective.

I read of a professional photographer who didn't have a view camera--for architectural shots, he used his Hasselblad with a wide angle lens, kept the camera level--the building was in the corner of the negative, and he cropped to use just the part he needed. Not the best approach especially with medium format, but with large format I would not hesitate to do this.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Loss of quality due to cropping, presumably referring to detail, is a function of the degree of enlargement. And many of us shoot view cameras not only for their perspective and plane of focus movement options, but for the sheer richness of the larger negative. I don't want my 4x5 shots to cropped down to MF size; nor do I shoot 8x10 film just to chop it down to fit in a 4X5 enlarger.

One can purchase perspective-control shift lenses for a number of MF SLR's as well as 35mm SLR's, and there's a special adjustable wide angle attachment for Hassies; but it's so darn clumsy and expensive, you'd be better off just purchasing a basic 4x5 system. Besides, view camera lenses are designed with larger image circles relative to focal length, allowing for a greater degree of rise to begin with. Yes, many architectural shots have been made with MF gear, but conspicuously so, with the vertical convergence uncorrected. Or nowadays they buy very expensive MF digitial cameras with correctable lenses just to save time going from shot to pre-press. Everybody wants everything today to arrive yesterday. But functionally, real view cameras are just soooo much easier to work with in this case.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... Is there a way to point the camera up at the subject, and then correct the perspective... say with tilt on the rear standard?
...

I neglected to mention in my post above that, yes, just tilting the back without tilting the lens standard will, indeed, correct the converging verticals in the scene. The problem is that the plane of sharp focus will no longer be parallel to the façade of the building. If you then focus on the middle of the building, the top and bottom will be out of focus.

However, if you tilt the front toward parallel as much as the lens coverage allows and the focus spread isn't too extreme, you can often get everything sharp enough using a smaller aperture, counting on depth of field to take up the slack where coverage leaves off. Sometimes this compromise works well.

Best,

Doremus

 

[pbromaghin]

Large-Format Camera Practice, by Joseph Foldes.

The finest instructional book I've ever read on ANY subject. Text and illustrations match perfectly. Not one extra word. Not one word missing. Every bit of it absolutely clear and simple.