Asymmetric movements - gadget or gimmick?

[Joanna Carter]

Following on from a thread started by John (FearZeus) in the Classified section, and from a recent conversation with another LFite, I would like to start a controversy

Let me start by saying that this is not a personal attack on Joe Cornish whose work I both admire and sometimes envy; it is meant to be a reasoned discussion of a technique that some people seem to have (slavishly) followed, possibly, simply "because Joe does it"

What is the point of asymmetric movements on the rear standard of a camera?

As far as I can see, the reasoning is that, by placing something in your prospective image on one of the "third" lines, one is able to focus that point and then simply apply a single movement to bring everything else into focus.

So, how about architectural work where the rear standard has to be totally upright to avoid converging verticals? The answer seems to be to apply rear tilts, using the asymmetrics, and then "transfer" the movement achieved to the front standard. Now, I can understand that this kind of thing is possible on a studio camera like a Sinar, which has precision movements with graduated scales but, on an Ebony???

Now, to come to landscape photography, which seems to be the majority interest, and in regard to that which John (FearZeus) wants to move into...

I can see utility in using asymmetric movements if one wants to take Joe Cornish "signature" images with a large rock in the forground and a disappearing beach in the background, where adding a bit of rear tilt will exaggerate the perspective but, what of those images that do not conform to that stereotype?

I take images like this where the hingepoint is set, something like, 30ft above the camera and the plane of focus passes through the gutter of the nearest house on the right and ends up through a streetlight at the bottom of the steps. There simply wasn't any "quick fix" where something was on a third; what is more, the architectural content precluded the use of rear movements. And, no, simple depth of field focusing wasn't an option here.

Or an image like this where, once again, the plane of focus had to pass, for most of the image, through thin air, in order to get things like the edge of the wharf in the foreground in focus.

Surely, asymmetric movements, if provided, would be better placed on the front standard so that, if they have utility for a given image, there is no need to "transfer" such movements.

If exaggeration of perspective, where a rock is in the foreground, is the desired aim, then why not simply move the camera closer to the rock?

I suppose that one could argue that, since the asymmetric movements place lines on the thirds of the screen, is this not really just a gimmick to "prompt" a photographer to place a compositional element on the third, thus making the picture more aeshetically pleasing without as much thought on the photographer's part?

Could the provision of asymmetric movements and "third" lines on the focusing screen tend to lead us to making "formulaic" images rather than looking for compositions that break the "rules" but which are still visually attractive?

If you don't want to be "coerced" into taking formulaic images, prompted by the way that you focus, is there truly a need to spend more money than is otherwise necessary to obtain a camera?

Why buy an Ebony 45SU when a 45S will do the same job?

Why buy an Ebony SV45U2 when a SV45Te will do the same job?

And would another, little known, design peculiarity not achieve a similar effect? All Ebony lens boards have the lens hole offset vertically, thus making the axis tilt on the front standard behave asymmetrically.

So, in summary, are asymmetric movements really a financially worthwhile gadget, or simply a financially unnecessary gimmick?

I await your comments

[Tim Myers]

I see the asymetrics offered by the SU as a mere convenience to be used when the photographer deems that they would help form the image they are envisaging.

If your individual style is to use a JCB* which is exaggerated in perspective - then assym rear tilts will help you achieve this affect.

Without meaning any offence to SU owners here, I sometimes feel that the 45SU is seen as a silver bullet - "I'll buy the same camera as Joe Cornish and I'll make images which look like his".

I agree with Joanna that having the tilts on the 'third' lines could stifle compositional creativity if the photographer relies on the asymmetric tilts for his focussing.

I think it's a trifle unfair to think of Joe's images as always having the 'signature' JCB in the corner; have a look through the images on his website and you'll find a myriad of images without the boulder in the foreground. I think that when he does use the boulder as a compositional device he does it with such effect that it sticks in one's mind.

This leads me back to asymmetric tilts. I feel they can be useful in the right situation, but they're not the silver bullet - the best thing to do IMHO if you have asymmetric tilts is to learn when not to, and have the courage to compose an image where the asymmetric tilts wouldn't help you.



*JCB = Joe Cornish Boulder

[PAUL O]

Firstly Jo ... how brave to "dis" the 45SU

Seriously though! I've been using the 45SU for about 7 years now and although an expensive purchase I am seriously glad that I spent the extra cash on the asym movements. Here's why:

Utilising asym movements are the ideal in the realm of landscape photography - you're correct in questioning how useful these movements are when trying to keep verticals ... vertical!! But I've found that I VERY rarely need to transfer the movement to the front standard when shooting buildings as I simply make use of the movements available on the front standard and forget those on the rear.

I'd like to also mention that I actually got my Ebony 45SU in the same shipment as Joe Cornish

I've long admired your photography and I can honestly say that of the images I have seen the only one that you would struggle to use asym tilt would be the long exposure shot you took of the art/photographic gallery (very nice!). BUT remember that the asym movements also allow for swing which means that in a shot like that one this movement could have been employed if needed and still kept the verticals upright?

The other important factor to remember is that even when using the 45SU for architecture I often find that the amount of movement needed is often so small that even if I use rear tilt the (negative) effect on the verticals is so minute as to be not noticeable - after all we're talking of (in many cases) of tilt of just a degree or two.

I have also found that using asym movements is not a science - there is a common misconception that the image has to be composed according to the requirements of the asym markings on the ground glass screen. That is the image has to obey the rule of thirds or the foreground / point of interest has to lie on the same plane as that of the asym movement. This is not the case. I compose the image on the screen first and then simply use the process of focusing on the bottom gridded line and tilting the back until the image on the top gridded line snaps into focus. It is irrelevant what is located along these "asymmetric" lines on the ground glass screen - sometimes it is foreground, sometimes background or even middle ground.

The reasons I bought the 45SU after using the SW45 for a number of years was the speed and accuracy of applying the movements - I can take a shot quickly and know that when the negative is developed everything is in focus where I wanted it to be!

The 45SU also offers far more in the way of movements than the 45S - it has longer bellows draw as well as more mms of movement in front rise etc. It also allows the use of interchangeable bellows!

To conclude, there are many options out there (as long as they're Ebony ) but I consider the 45SU full of worthwhile gadgets!
What do others feel?

[Joanna Carter]

JCB = Joe Cornish Boulder

What a wonderful TLA!

I think it's a trifle unfair to think of Joe's images as always having the 'signature' JCB in the corner

And that is certainly neither my intent to give that impression nor is it true.

... have the courage to compose an image where the asymmetric tilts wouldn't help you.

Heheh, that image from the top of Les Escaliers took me 2 1/2 hours to figure out how to get it all in focus!! Does that count as courageous or just plain unskilled?

[Nigels]

Well, I've got the RSW so much of the movements debate simply isn't an issue for me. While I recognise there are things I am unable to do I also don't feel in the slightest bit restricted.
While Joe Cornish is being mentioned I will add a quote from his review of the RSW which is on the Ebony site - "This is one of those rare objects which genuinely deserves the description 'less is more'."

[Tim Myers]

What a wonderful TLA!

Unfortunatley I can't claim credit for that - it came from David Ward who says he could make a fortune selling inflateable ones!

And that is certainly neither my intent to give that impression nor is it true.

This was a remark directed at 'the general photographic public' rather than at your initial post; my post didn't really make that clear.

Heheh, that image from the top of Les Escaliers took me 2 1/2 hours to figure out how to get it all in focus!! Does that count as courageous or just plain unskilled?

I think that makes you determined; you know what you wish to achieve in the image you're making, and didn't comprimise.

[Aender]

I have never used an Ebony with asymmetric movements, so I probably can't know what I am missing. But, I do not miss a thing on my SW45 and could just as well use an RSW45 like Nigels. I just went for the SW45 because it was available second hand (like new) at the same price as a new RSW. For my landscape work, front tilt is all I have ever needed until now. I have worked with cameras that had rear tilt too (Chamonix 45N-1 and Ebony 23S), but I didn't see this as a major bonus. Call me ignorant, but for my purposes, I don't see the necessity of asymmetric movements. I prefer to work with a very simple camera and very few lenses. So, yes, less is more. At least for me.
As an aside, this saves me a lot of money too.

[Thingy]

I find myself agreeing with Paul O (even though I'm still awaiting delivery of my new 45SU ). I spent a long time agonising about the most suitable LF camera but knew I wanted something more refined and versatile than my old MPP Mk V. The things that attracted me to the 45SU were its range of movements, the option of interchangeable bellows (not offered with the 45S) versatility and yes, the ability to use asymmetric focussing on the rear standard on the occasions when I will use 5x4. I wanted a camera that would allow me to experiment and was future proof. I will be using it for landscape, architectural and some studio work plus macro (at the moment I am thinking of macro work primarily for photographing jewelry, lichens and a variety of mycological fruiting bodies but that will probably expand).

I had never heard of Joe Cornish ( ) until having made my choice, I was told that he had one of these cameras in his collection. My attitude was so what. What other people find suitable have never influenced my choice of camera or hifi equipment, or anything else for that matter.

I must confess that upon meeting my first Ebony (an SW45 incidentally) I fell in love with him (as a technical camera, I'm assuming it's male! ) and am looking forward to our forthcoming betrothal.... er I mean civil partnership!

[Apple]

As I came from a Sinar P2 to the Ebony, I wanted asymmetric movements to continue where I'd left off as they can be good for quick setups (OK, I'm not that quick but it's faster that some other methods) That's one reason why Joe C calls it the equivalence of 'autofocus' in LF! For his JCB pictures, he's not too bothered if the perspective is out (would you go to the trouble of measuring it to prove it?) and prefers it that way for the emphasis it gives.

Another reason for rear asymmetrics is that humans aren't normally born with three arms which I find I need to adjust the front, focus the rear and hold the loupe concurrently. I ended up buying a clip-on magnifier for my glasses but that gets you even more weird looks upon emerging from the darkcloth and is awkward to use easily.

Asymmetric movements aren't for every situation, especially with the Ebony as they're only on the rear standard on the SU. I miss having the Sinar ability to set the rear, transfer it to the front and then re-zero the rear as a way of accurately setting the front tilt / swing without altering the perspective.

As Jo C (similarity? ) hinted, for architecture where verticals need to be vertical, an SU is no different to / better than anything else in the fact that you need the rear parallel to the subject (assuming this is compositionally what you want) as the asymmetrics only work on the rear. Where they can work is when you want to throw the perspective, e.g. down the length of a building outside it can be a quicker way of working. Some shots, for example the Brelevenez steps shot, you wouldn't notice rear swing as the brain sees nothing wrong with a tweaked perspective in that plane. Where it would look wrong is employing rear tilt for the front to back sharpness as it would throw the verticals out of parallel.

Or you could just resort to the "if you've got it, flaunt it" / mine's better than yours" attitude... but the response may not be very Christian...

[buze]

The Chamonix 45N-1 back is not on threads, so you can position it pretty much every way you want when framing. I usually loosen the screws, then take the back with both hands and put it just the way I want my focal plane to be, then lock it down and affine with the front and/or focus screw.

The camera back is on two 'rails' but they are made to be rather flexible in one axis, so you move the back considerably and lock it down at a point where the two guides are no longer parallel.

Is it what you describe as "asymmetric" Or can the Ebony also warp the ground glass and fold it every other way ?

[Jonathan Perkins]

I can see the usefulness in some circumstances, but for me it came down to a much simpler decision - I purchased my 45S second hand from RW for approx. £3000 less than a new 45SU. I didn't think that asymmetric movements were worth that to me, so decision made! I've never felt handicapped by centre movements.

[Charles Twist]

Andrew said:

humans aren't normally born with three arms which I find I need to adjust the front, focus the rear and hold the loupe concurrently

I have been reading the Hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy over Christmas, and the thought of Zaphod Beeblebrox with three arms and two heads comes to mind. He must be a natural LF’er. Think what you can do with all that!
Seriously, and back to the main point: Ebony’s are expensive but they are selling, so there must be a reason and a good one at that, whatever it is. Not being Ebonited, I can only speak of my own predicaments with my Toyo 45A, which has proved sufficient for most of my photography over the last few years. For landscape, very honestly, I don’t need more and can’t see how one could justify it. A lengthy conversation with Tim Parkins has convinced me that the only functional benefit is the longer bellows which would allow me the use of a 500mm tele lens. As I don’t have one, I don’t need an Ebony. QED. My landscape work can afford a loss of perspective control. My architectural work cannot and I am finding the Toyo hard work, when I want to conserve the building’s orthogonals through the projection on to the ground glass when I am off-axis by some. Conserving the verticals is one thing; rise and fall do a good job of that and LF cameras always (?) have this. Conserving the horizontals is much harder given the Toyo’s design. Shift is only possible by swinging the front and back. I am guessing that the prevalence of landscape photography has lead to shift and even swing being an optional extra in most camera makers' ranges. Beyond my personal issues (for which the answer is a monorail, I guess), I was wondering whether the asym movements help with conserving horizontals.
Second question: from the responses above it seems that Ebonites focus using the rear standard. With the Toyo, focussing pretty well has to be done through the front standard alone, but the question is this: wouldn’t it be more practical to control the projection using the rear standard (ie have all the movements necessary to make the image as you would like it) and then use the front standard to control the focus? In which case, why are the asym on the rear and not on the front, where they would be more effective?
Thank you.
Charles

[Emmanuel Bigler]

What is the point of asymmetric movements on the rear standard of a camera?

Hello from France and best wishes to the LF-UK Gang for the New Year.

Fist, I've never seen asymmetric swings (but I'm too young in the world of large format cameras). Sure, by rotating an Ebony(TM) by 90° to the side around the optical axis (this sometimes happens when you stroke an Ebony(TM) too strongly), then eventually you can convert asymmetric movements of the first kind into asymmetric movements of the second kind.
So Joanna probably meant asymmetric tilts.

If this is so, eh, Joanna : don't tell me that you dare to use back tilts ?
Shame on you ! Serious photographers, after breaking their back on using metal monorail cameras in the mountains, would never use back tilts ! Everything in front ! Imagine all the horrifying distorsions that you'll induce to your image by using a slanted image plane !

Third : If I used an Arca Swiss misura, I would find the question irrelevant (rear )

Fourth: Since Sinar used to advertise heavily for asymmetric tilts ; and since I'm a declared Arcaphile, the question is also irrelevant !

Not kidding : I never found sorry not to have any asymmetic tilts any kind !

And trying to be serious for one second : different kinds of tilting systems have their advantages and drawbacks.
I only see the asymmetric tilts like on the Sinar P / P2 (I need a hands-on tutorial for the Ebony some day) as a kind of a compromise between differents solutions. But since I do no use a Sinar (nor an Ebony), I'm not qualified to comment.
The advantage of base tilts is that you can combine them with a swing mechanism positioned above and hence you can avoid yaw (see below). But base tilts defocus the image quickly.
Axis tilts on the other hand will defocus the image very little, but conventional axis tilts like on the Bender kit or other classical view cameras with no base tilts will induce yaw, an annoying thing when you are in the studio (as they say, but I never use my LF camera in the studio, and since I use a yaw-free camera, I'm doubly protected againts those evils).

So I see the asymmetric tilt as a compromise bewteen axis and base tilts. Probably useful in the studio where you have to use generous movements (at least in the good ol' days when professionnals actually used a large format camera in the studio..)
But for landscape use where movements should be in principle very small... all kinds of tilting mechanisms, IMHO, are more or less equivalent.
Who cares for yaw when the required tilting angle for the classical Scheimpflug-for-landscape is about 10 degrees or often much less ? (I agree 100% with Paul O.)

[Joanna Carter]

Ebony’s are expensive but they are selling, so there must be a reason and a good one at that, whatever it is.

From the point of view of an Ebonite, I have to say that some of the attraction must be a bit like owning a premium car instead of a little runaround; both will get you from A to B, it's just that one does it in so much more style If it were a matter of pure superiority of functionality over another make, then OK. But I see people yearning for something as modest as an RSW; surely there are cheaper cameras with the same, if not more, functionality?

Having spoken to Mike Walker on a few occasions now, I am seriously wondering whether his SF camera would not be the equal or better to my Ebony SV45Te; certainly the price is very attractive. And since I don't have asymmetric movements now, I wouldn't miss them.

... I was wondering whether the asym movements help with conserving horizontals.

As far as I can see, asymmetric movements don't solve any focusing/alignment problems; the simply make it easier to cope with certain scenarios.

Second question: from the responses above it seems that Ebonites focus using the rear standard. With the Toyo, focussing pretty well has to be done through the front standard alone, but the question is this: wouldn’t it be more practical to control the projection using the rear standard (ie have all the movements necessary to make the image as you would like it) and then use the front standard to control the focus? In which case, why are the asym on the rear and not on the front, where they would be more effective?

Here I would have to agree wholeheartedly with you Charles. In fact, as I have previously mentioned, Ebony cameras prefer a lens board with a vertically dropped offset, thus giving an asymmetric movement on the axis tilt Now, why didn't Ebony pick up on that and make that a "feature"?

Mind you, the "third lines" are on the rear standard, thus the movements would have to centre on that line. Although, that said, the line on the screen where the true axis of rotation should be is several millimetres behind the actual axis of asymmetric rotation.

So, given such physical discrepancies, is the asymmetric idea really, "scientifically", useful, or is it simply a gimmicky gadget that we convince ourselves, with all its imperfections, we just must have?

[Apple]

Andrew said:

humans aren't normally born with three arms which I find I need to adjust the front, focus the rear and hold the loupe concurrently

I have been reading the Hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy over Christmas, and the thought of Zaphod Beeblebrox with three arms and two heads comes to mind. He must be a natural LF’er. Think what you can do with all that!

At least you'd be able to check the shutter speed and aperture as well as focus at the same time!

My architectural work cannot and I am finding the Toyo hard work, when I want to conserve the building’s orthogonals through the projection on to the ground glass when I am off-axis by some. Conserving the verticals is one thing; rise and fall do a good job of that and LF cameras always (?) have this. Conserving the horizontals is much harder given the Toyo’s design. Shift is only possible by swinging the front and back. I am guessing that the prevalence of landscape photography has lead to shift and even swing being an optional extra in most camera makers' ranges. Beyond my personal issues (for which the answer is a monorail, I guess), I was wondering whether the asym movements help with conserving horizontals.

As you mention, a monorail would be a great solution for architectural work but logistics comes into play - how big, hefty and cumbersome a system can you deal with if longer distances are involved etc.?

One advantage of the monorail is that you get away from compounf movements, e.g. swing and shift being on one locking point. It gives you the freedom to separate the individual movements and planes. Effectively, its like the difference between balls & socket head and 3-way pan and tilt - the letter being slower but more in control. Monorails with geared movements are even better for the "technical" pictures but cost and complexity rise accordingly. Yaw free helps as well.

For conserving horizontals, if you want things without converging / diverging lines then you still need to get the g/g parallel to the subject as with any other camera. The asymmetrics only help with the quick focusing and remove the iterative processes involved in using the front standard.

Second question: from the responses above it seems that Ebonites focus using the rear standard. With the Toyo, focussing pretty well has to be done through the front standard alone, but the question is this: wouldn’t it be more practical to control the projection using the rear standard (ie have all the movements necessary to make the image as you would like it) and then use the front standard to control the focus? In which case, why are the asym on the rear and not on the front, where they would be more effective?

It might be an old wives tale but I took it that focusing via the front standard altered the "zoom" /framing of the picture and using the rear standard only altered the focus... (flame suit on... )

Your method of rear for the perspective and front for the focus is the way to do it . Tilting the front doesn't change perspective as you're passing the light through the middle point of the lens and hence can't alter the g/g to lens centre distance for more than one point - tilting the g/g on the rear standard can make one part of the picture further away from the g/g and another place closer which alters the perspective and the focus...

Clear as mud?

Andrew