If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Hamley wrote:
"Captain Blammo" wrote in message ... Captain, I think you might get a lot from a software simulation of VC controls. Unfortunately, I have no pointers to such. I no doubt would. I have no trouble understanding the principles, but I find that if I know exactly where I want to place the plane of sharp focus, it is very difficult for me to get it right on the mark, especially at high levels of swing/tilt. Often when I swing, the subject moves out of the plane until I can refocus, whereupon the angle changes, so I adjust the swing, refocus, rinse, repeat until it's right. I find this a bit cumbersome. Keeping the plane of sharp focus sharp whilst moving it around would be very helpful. So I take it that you guys can all place the plane of sharp focus anywhere you want it with good precision then? If so, pointers on how to pick up the knack would be appreciated. I've read up on the Scheimpflug and hinge rules, but I find they're too finicky to predict just by looking at a scene with any useable accuracy. Ewan "Often when I swing, the subject moves out of the plane until I can refocus, whereupon the angle changes, so I adjust the swing, refocus, rinse, repeat until it's right. I find this a bit cumbersome. Keeping the plane of sharp focus sharp whilst moving it around would be very helpful." Ewan, I suggest picking up Jack Dykinga's book, "Large Format Nature Photography". He explains how to do the move-focus iteration, which is a characteristic of symmetric movement view cameras. Dykinga's book is invaluable, but it should be noted that he uses primarily rear tilts. That works fine for what he does, but many of us prefer in most circumstances to keep the rear standard vertical, which requires the use of a front tilt. But there is an alternative, although few of them. The Sinar P series view camera, the Ebony "U" series field cameras, and the Wehman 8x10 field cameras have asymmetric movements (Sinar P on both, the Wehman and Ebony on the rear). Asymmetric movements are much easier to set up and frequently require only 1 iteration per movement (swing, tilt) for typical landscape scenes. I'm not talking about using the Sinar scales, etc, just focusing on the swing or tilt point and moving the other side of the standard to finish. Steve |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Hamley wrote:
"Captain Blammo" wrote in message ... Captain, I think you might get a lot from a software simulation of VC controls. Unfortunately, I have no pointers to such. I no doubt would. I have no trouble understanding the principles, but I find that if I know exactly where I want to place the plane of sharp focus, it is very difficult for me to get it right on the mark, especially at high levels of swing/tilt. Often when I swing, the subject moves out of the plane until I can refocus, whereupon the angle changes, so I adjust the swing, refocus, rinse, repeat until it's right. I find this a bit cumbersome. Keeping the plane of sharp focus sharp whilst moving it around would be very helpful. So I take it that you guys can all place the plane of sharp focus anywhere you want it with good precision then? If so, pointers on how to pick up the knack would be appreciated. I've read up on the Scheimpflug and hinge rules, but I find they're too finicky to predict just by looking at a scene with any useable accuracy. Ewan "Often when I swing, the subject moves out of the plane until I can refocus, whereupon the angle changes, so I adjust the swing, refocus, rinse, repeat until it's right. I find this a bit cumbersome. Keeping the plane of sharp focus sharp whilst moving it around would be very helpful." Ewan, I suggest picking up Jack Dykinga's book, "Large Format Nature Photography". He explains how to do the move-focus iteration, which is a characteristic of symmetric movement view cameras. Dykinga's book is invaluable, but it should be noted that he uses primarily rear tilts. That works fine for what he does, but many of us prefer in most circumstances to keep the rear standard vertical, which requires the use of a front tilt. But there is an alternative, although few of them. The Sinar P series view camera, the Ebony "U" series field cameras, and the Wehman 8x10 field cameras have asymmetric movements (Sinar P on both, the Wehman and Ebony on the rear). Asymmetric movements are much easier to set up and frequently require only 1 iteration per movement (swing, tilt) for typical landscape scenes. I'm not talking about using the Sinar scales, etc, just focusing on the swing or tilt point and moving the other side of the standard to finish. Steve |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Leonard Evens" wrote in message
... If you are good at math and physics, you might look at my essay http://www.math.northwestern.edu/~le.../dof_essay.pdf Thanks for that. It is great to have a professional mathematician and scholar here. It might be fun if persons of other academic disciplines applied their field of study to the problem of VC movements. The Political Scientist: Avoid complicating your effort with technical issues and concentrate upon your strength. Obviate expertise in view camera movements: instead, obfuscate the issues by making it appear that your technique yields superior results within the cultural context of your chosen constituency. If neccessary, appeal to hired art scholars to fortify your case and repeat your assertion often with full vigor and confidence." (the Big Dummies Big Lie Approach). It's easier to cast aspersions on a field I do not really understand. (That's a recursive comment.) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Leonard Evens" wrote in message
... If you are good at math and physics, you might look at my essay http://www.math.northwestern.edu/~le.../dof_essay.pdf Thanks for that. It is great to have a professional mathematician and scholar here. It might be fun if persons of other academic disciplines applied their field of study to the problem of VC movements. The Political Scientist: Avoid complicating your effort with technical issues and concentrate upon your strength. Obviate expertise in view camera movements: instead, obfuscate the issues by making it appear that your technique yields superior results within the cultural context of your chosen constituency. If neccessary, appeal to hired art scholars to fortify your case and repeat your assertion often with full vigor and confidence." (the Big Dummies Big Lie Approach). It's easier to cast aspersions on a field I do not really understand. (That's a recursive comment.) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Captain Blammo" wrote
I've read up on the Scheimpflug and hinge rules, but I find they're too finicky to predict just by looking at a scene with any useable accuracy. Er, what are you taking pictures of? Try standing to the side, about 5 feet away, and looking at the camera and scene. You may find it easier to see where the film and subject planes intersect. For the simplest case, a flat landscape, make a mark on the ground directly below the film back and then tilt the front so that you can sight down the lensboard to the mark on the ground. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"jjs" wrote in message
... "Leonard Evens" wrote in message ... If you are good at math and physics, you might look at my essay http://www.math.northwestern.edu/~le.../dof_essay.pdf Thanks for that. It is great to have a professional mathematician and scholar here. It might be fun if persons of other academic disciplines applied their field of study to the problem of VC movements. The Political Scientist: Avoid complicating your effort with technical issues and concentrate upon your strength. Obviate expertise in view camera movements: instead, obfuscate the issues by making it appear that your technique yields superior results within the cultural context of your chosen constituency. If neccessary, appeal to hired art scholars to fortify your case and repeat your assertion often with full vigor and confidence." (the Big Dummies Big Lie Approach). It's easier to cast aspersions on a field I do not really understand. (That's a recursive comment.) Hmmm, I've been a risk consultant (all about probability and impact) and worked in econometrics - wonder what I should take from there for the calculation of tilts? Design a really complex methodology that 'probably' works, and then blame 'localised variables' when it never does, I suppose. (Also been an archaeologist, artists' model, lumberjack, pork pie packer, supermarket shelf filler, bodyguard... oh, and a photographer, but that one certainly ain't relevant.) Peter |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
jjs wrote:
"Leonard Evens" wrote in message ... If you are good at math and physics, you might look at my essay http://www.math.northwestern.edu/~le.../dof_essay.pdf Thanks for that. It is great to have a professional mathematician and scholar here. It might be fun if persons of other academic disciplines applied their field of study to the problem of VC movements. The Political Scientist: Avoid complicating your effort with technical issues and concentrate upon your strength. Obviate expertise in view camera movements: instead, obfuscate the issues by making it appear that your technique yields superior results within the cultural context of your chosen constituency. If neccessary, appeal to hired art scholars to fortify your case and repeat your assertion often with full vigor and confidence." (the Big Dummies Big Lie Approach). It's easier to cast aspersions on a field I do not really understand. (That's a recursive comment.) Well, you said it yourself. If you look at the original post, he told us he was good at math and physics. For such a person, using a quantitative approach might be helpful. I certainly don't insist that everyone has to use such an approach. But after all, optics is physics, and a certain amount of mathematics enters. Without all that, no one would have been able to design all those marvelous cameras we use. Needless to say, having such knowledge doesn't make me a better photographer than someone else who doesn't have it. But why does it bother you so much that someone might understand these things at a level you don't want to approach? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Master Mason Handbook | Doug Robbins | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | July 15th 04 03:33 PM |
Busch Rangefinder cams | Tom | Large Format Photography Equipment | 1 | February 25th 04 12:04 PM |
Telephoto Binocular Comparison | foto | Photographing Nature | 21 | December 26th 03 03:27 PM |
Equipment/Camera Advice for Taking Photo's from Top View | deepak | Other Photographic Equipment | 4 | December 25th 03 04:06 AM |